Stockport Town Centre Transport Town Centre Access Plan (Phase 2) and Stockport Interchange: Consultation Report

STOCKPORT TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT TOWN CENTRE ACCESS PLAN (PHASE 2) AND STOCKPORT INTERCHANGE: CONSULTATION REPORT

MARCH 2016

STOCKPORT TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT

TOWN CENTRE ACCESS PLAN (PHASE 2) AND STOCKPORT INTERCHANGE: CONSULTATION REPORT Stockport MBC

Project no: 70005497 Date: March 2016

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff The Victoria 150-182 The Quays Salford Manchester M30 3SP

Tel: +44 161 886 2400 Fax: +44 161 886 2401 www.wspgroup.com www.pbworld.com

QUALITY MANAGEMENT

ISSUE/REVISION FIRST ISSUE REVISION 1 REVISION 2 REVISION 3

Remarks Draft (Full) 2nd Draft (Full) 3rd Draft (Full) Final

Date 20/01/2016 22/02/2016 09/03/2016 24/03/2016

Prepared by AP / EH AP / EH AP / EH AP / EH

Checked by EH EH EH EH

Authorised by EH EH EH EH

Project number 70005497 70005497 70005497 70005497

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.2 TCAP SUMMARY ...... 1 1.3 STOCKPORT INTERCHANGE SUMMARY ...... 4 1.4 REPORT STRUCTURE...... 6 2 METHODOLOGY ...... 7 2.2 CONSULTATION AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ...... 7 2.3 AUDIENCE ...... 8 2.4 AWARENESS RAISING ...... 8 2.5 CONSULTATION SUPPORT ...... 8 2.6 METHODS OF CONSULTATION ...... 8 LEAFLET ...... 8 RESPONSE FORM ...... 9 WEB PAGES...... 9 EXHIBITIONS ...... 10 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ...... 10 2.7 APPROACH TO ANALYSIS ...... 13 VERBATIM COMMENTS ...... 13 3 RESPONSE (VOLUME AND SOURCE)...... 15 3.2 NUMBER OF RESPONSES ...... 15 3.3 EXHIBITION ATTENDANCE ...... 15 3.4 WEB PAGE VIEWS ...... 16 3.5 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS ...... 16 3.6 SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS ...... 16 GENDER...... 16 AGE ...... 17 ETHNICITY ...... 18 DISABILITY...... 19 RELATIONSHIP TO STOCKPORT...... 20 METHOD OF TRAVEL ...... 20 4 RESPONSE (TOWN CENTRE ACCESS PLAN PHASE 2) ...... 22 4.2 SCHEME 108 – HIGHER HILLGATE ...... 22 4.3 SCHEME 109 – HEMPSHAW LANE / CHRISTIE STREET ...... 23 4.4 SCHEME 303 – KING STREET WEST (GRADWELL STREET TO RIVER MERSEY) ...... 23 4.5 SCHEME 307 – STOCKPORT EXCHANGE PHASE 3-5 ...... 24 4.6 SCHEME 402 – KNIGHTSBRIDGE AND GREAT PORTWOOD STREET ..... 24 4.7 SCHEME 502 – M60 JUNCTION 1 IMPROVEMENTS - HOLLYWOOD WAY ...... 25 4.8 SCHEME 604 – HALL STREET / TURNCROFT LANE ...... 26 4.9 SCHEME 606 – STOCKPORT EASTERN CYCLING LINKS ...... 27 4.10 SCHEME 609 – HEMPSHAW LANE / LOWNDES LANE ...... 27

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 iii

4.11 SCHEMES 702, 703, 706 – WELLINGTON ROAD: SOUTH (LONGSHUT LANE TO GREEK STREET); SOUTH (GREEK STREET TO DAW BANK) AND PARALLEL CYCLE ROUTE; NORTH / HEATON LANE ...... 28 4.12 SCHEME 706 – WELLINGTON ROAD NORTH / HEATON LANE ...... 29 4.14 SCHEME 801 – TRAVIS BROW / A6 LINK AND GEORGE’S ROAD ...... 30 4.15 SCHEMES 901, 902 – HEATON NORRIS - TOWN CENTRE LINKS; PENNY LANE - TOWN CENTRE LINKS ...... 30 4.16 SCHEME 906 – BELMONT WAY CYCLEWAY ...... 31 4.17 SCHEME 907 – LANCASHIRE HILL ROUNDABOUT...... 31 4.18 GENERAL COMMENTS ...... 31 4.19 MISCELLANEOUS ...... 33 HARD COPY RESPONSE FORM ENCLOSURES ...... 33 LETTERS ...... 33 OTHER ...... 33 5 RESPONSE (STOCKPORT INTERCHANGE) ...... 34 5.2 ASPECTS OF THE INTERCHANGE DESIGN THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO USERS ...... 34 5.3 COMMENTS ON THE FACILITIES PLANNED...... 35 LIFT TO THE A6 ...... 36 ENHANCED PASSENGER SECURITY AND CCTV ...... 36 COVERED PASSENGER CONCOURSE WITH A SEATED WAITING AREA ...... 37 HIGH QUALITY, FULLY ACCESSIBLE TOILETS AND CHANGING FACILITIES ...... 38 SECURE CYCLE PARKING FACILITIES ...... 38 ELECTRONIC BUS AND RAIL INFORMATION...... 39 ATM/CASH MACHINE ...... 39 A TICKET AND INFORMATION OUTLET...... 40 IMPROVED TAXI FACILITIES ...... 40 WI-FI/INTERNET ACCESS ...... 41 5.4 POSSIBILITY OF INCLUDING A RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL OR OTHER DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY ...... 41 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ...... 42 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ...... 43 OTHER DEVELOPMENT ...... 44 5.6 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE STOCKPORT INTERCHANGE DESIGN ...... 45 5.7 ONGOING INTEREST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF STOCKPORT INTERCHANGE ...... 45 6 EXHIBITION FEEDBACK ...... 46 6.2 TOWN CENTRE ACCESS PLAN (PHASE 2) ...... 46 6.3 STOCKPORT INTERCHANGE ...... 46 7 STAKEHOLDER CORRESPONDENCE ...... 47 7.2 WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE ...... 47 STATUTORY CONSULTEES...... 47 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (EA) ...... 47

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 iv

PUBLIC TRANSPORT OPERATORS ...... 47 NORTHERN RAIL ...... 47 STAGECOACH ...... 48 LOCAL BUSINESSES ...... 48 T.N. ROBINSON LTD...... 48 LEE-MAR ESTATES LTD...... 49 SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS ...... 49 TRANS PENNINE TRAIL GROUP ...... 49 GREATER MANCHESTER CYCLING CAMPAIGN ...... 50 LOVE YOUR BIKE ...... 50 STOCKPORT CYCLE USER GROUP ...... 51 STOCKPORT EAST AREA BRIDLEWAYS ASSOCIATION ...... 51 OTHER ...... 52 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ...... 52 NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE ...... 52 7.3 MEETINGS ...... 52 COMMENTS RECEIVED ...... 53 STOCKPORT TOWN CENTRE – M60 GATEWAY TASK FORCE ...... 53 WERNETH AREA COMMITTEE...... 53 BUS OPERATORS ...... 53 DISABILITY STOCKPORT ...... 54 T.N. ROBINSON LTD...... 54 TFGM DISABILITY DESIGN REFERENCE GROUP...... 54 CENTRAL STOCKPORT AREA COMMITTEE ...... 55 STOCKPORT CYCLE USER GROUP ...... 55 SOUTH MANCHESTER FINANCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL NETWORK ...... 55 STOCKPORT LOCAL ACCESS FORUM ...... 56 GREATER MANCHESTER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ...... 56 STOCKPORT TOWN CENTRE BUSINESS AND RETAIL FORUM ...... 56 FRIENDS OF WOODBANK, VERNON AND POISE (FWVP) ...... 56 PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY FORUM ...... 57 TRANS PENNINE TRAIL GROUP ...... 57 WALTHEW HOUSE (STOCKPORT INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND THE DEAF AND THE DUMB)...... 57 STOCKPORT ECONOMIC ALLIANCE ...... 58 SHOPMOBILITY ...... 58 OTHER MEETINGS ...... 58 8 CONCLUSION ...... 59

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 v

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A TOWN CENTRE ACCESS PLAN – CONSULTATION REPORT (2014) APPENDIX B TOWN CENTRE ACCESS PLAN – KEY PLAN APPENDIX C CONSULTATION LEAFLET APPENDIX C-1 CONSULTATION LEAFLET APPENDIX C-2 CONSULTATION LEAFLET DROP AREA APPENDIX D CONSULTATION RESPONSE FORM APPENDIX E STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT EMAIL APPENDIX F TCAP CONSULTATION PHASE 2: REPORT PRESENTED AT THE WERNETH (9TH NOVEMBER 2015), HEATONS AND REDDISH (9TH NOVEMBER) AND CENTRAL STOCKPORT (12TH NOVEMBER) AREA COMMITTEE MEETINGS APPENDIX G RESPONSE (VOLUME AND SOURCE) FIGURES APPENDIX G-1 EXHIBITION ATTENDEES APPENDIX G-2 CONSULTATION RESPONDENTS (RESPONSE FORM) APPENDIX H STAKEHOLDER RESPONSES APPENDIX H-1 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY APPENDIX H-2 NORTHERN RAIL APPENDIX H-3 STAGECOACH APPENDIX H-4 T.N. ROBINSON LTD. APPENDIX H-5 LEE-MAR ESTATES LTD. APPENDIX H-6 TRANS PENNINE TRAIL GROUP APPENDIX H-7 GREATER MANCHESTER CYCLING CAMPAIGN APPENDIX H-8 LOVE YOUR BIKE APPENDIX H-9 CYCLE USER GROUP APPENDIX H-10 STOCKPORT EAST AREA BRIDLEWAYS ASSOCIATION

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 1

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND

1.1.1 This report presents the findings from the Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) and Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) led consultation on the Stockport Town Centre Access Plan (TCAP) Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange proposals. The public consultation was held over a four week period between Monday 9th November and Monday 7th December 2015, and this report details the analysis of the public response. It also details the outcome of consultation with stakeholders.

1.1.2 A full and inclusive consultation has been undertaken which has involved the public and key stakeholders from the Stockport and wider Greater Manchester area. The purpose of the consultation was to inform the public, local businesses and interest groups of the proposals that form the TCAP Phase 2 schemes and Stockport Interchange project and capture their comments.

1.1.3 A key focus of the consultation was engagement with business groups, reflecting the nature of key town centre land uses and the focus of the proposals on supporting the local economy. The feedback has been collated and analysed to inform the development of the schemes and their associated business case.

1.2 TCAP SUMMARY

1.2.1 TCAP is a package of measures which aims to transform the accessibility and connectivity to and around Stockport town centre. Considering access by all modes of travel, the plan aims to ease congestion for general road traffic, buses and freight, and encourage walking and cycling. TCAP is being delivered in two phases and work on the Phase 1 schemes has already begun.

1.2.2 The overall TCAP consultation which focused on the Phase 1 schemes was undertaken in autumn 2014 and sought feedback on respondents’ overall opinion of the proposals. As identified below, some of the TCAP Phase 2 schemes were included within the 2014 consultation while some new schemes have been added following further consideration of Stockport town centre’s transport issues and the feedback from the Phase 1 consultation.

1.2.3 The results of the 2014 consultation identified the majority of respondents agreed:

Æ there is a need to invest in transport access improvements; Æ the proposals will support the economy of Stockport town centre

1.2.4 Furthermore, key business groups in the Stockport area expressed recognition of the need to invest in transport in Stockport to support the local economy and the TCAP proposals were the appropriate way to address the existing issues.

1.2.5 The Consultation Report associated with the autumn 2014 consultation is included at Appendix A.

1.2.6 The detailed comments and suggestions received have been considered in the further development of the designs.

1.2.7 The TCAP proposals are summarised by Figure 1.1 with the Phase 2 schemes highlighted.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 2

Figure 1-1 Town Centre Access Plan Proposals

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 3

1.2.8 The key schemes included within TCAP Phase 2 are proposed to provide:

Æ Improved access to the M60 Junction 1 including a new link road from the A6 to Travis Brow and widening of Hollywood Way; Æ Improved South-North links on the West side of the town with a new one way gyratory system around Kingston Street and King Street West between Wood Street and Chestergate; Æ A6 corridor enhancements between George’s Road and Bramhall Lane including improved public realm, pedestrian crossings, cycle facilities and bus provision; Æ Improved access to Stockport Railway Station and public realm improvements to support Stockport Exchange Phase 3-5 office development; Æ Works to improve access to the new Stockport Interchange (bus station); Æ Improved linkage between the Peel Centre and Merseyway including a major upgrade to the Knightsbridge / Warren Street junction; and Æ New and improved pedestrian and cycle routes into Stockport town centre from the east including a new bridge over the Goyt and a new signal junction at Stockport Road West / Welkin Road.

1.2.9 Given the TCAP proposals cover a broad geographical area in the town centre, to assist with the consultation the schemes have been numbered, colour coded and put into sub-packages. The Phase 2 sub-packages are shown on SMBC’s TCAP Key Plan drawing (with the Phase 1 schemes) included at Appendix B and outlined below. Unless stated otherwise, the below Phase 2 schemes were subject to initial consultation in autumn 2014:

Æ 100 Series: St Mary’s Way, Hempshaw Lane and Higher Hillgate;

Scheme 108 - Higher Hillgate (added following autumn 2014 consultation)

Scheme 109 - Hempshaw Lane / Christie Street (added following autumn 2014 consultation) Æ 300 Series: Stockport Station, Interchange and Mersey Square;

Scheme 303 - King Street West (Gradwell Street to River Mersey)

Scheme 307 - Stockport Exchange Phase 3-5 (added following autumn 2014 consultation) Æ 400 Series: Central Shopping Area;

Scheme 402 - Knightsbridge and Great Portwood Street Æ 500 Series: Western Gateway;

Scheme 502 - M60 Junction 1 Improvements - Hollywood Way Æ 600 Series: Eastern Links;

Scheme 601 - Newbridge Lane – Hillgate to Stanley Street (added following autumn 2014 consultation)

Scheme 604 - Hall Street / Turncroft Lane

Scheme 606 - Stockport Eastern Cycling Links

Scheme 609 - Hempshaw Lane / Lowndes Lane

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 4

Æ 700 Series: A6 Improvement;

Scheme 702 - Wellington Road South (Longshut Lane to Greek Street)

Scheme 703 - Wellington Road South (Greek Street to Daw Bank) and parallel cycle route

Scheme 706 - Wellington Road North/ Heaton Lane (added following autumn 2014 consultation) Æ 800 Series: New Link Road;

Scheme 801 - Travis Brow / A6 Link and George’s Road Æ 900 Series: Northern Links and Crossing the M60;

Scheme 901 - Heaton Norris - Town Centre Links

Scheme 902 - Penny Lane - Town Centre Links

Scheme 906 - Belmont Way Cycleway (added following autumn 2014 consultation)

Scheme 907 - Lancashire Hill Roundabout (added following autumn 2014 consultation) Æ Wayfinding Strategy (added following 2014 consultation)

1.2.10 TCAP forms part of the wider Greater Manchester Local Growth Deal Programme, which is being funded by Central Government and local contributions.

1.3 STOCKPORT INTERCHANGE SUMMARY

1.3.1 TfGM and SMBC have developed proposals for a new transport interchange in Stockport on the site of the existing bus station.

1.3.2 A transport interchange is a hub which allows passengers to change easily from one type of transport to another, for example bus, train, taxi, bicycle or coach. This makes public transport more accessible; easier to use, safer, more reliable and enjoyable. It also provides linkages which support walking as an active lifestyle option.

1.3.3 It is proposed that the new Stockport Interchange will provide a modern, attractive concourse and offer greater access for all passengers, residents and businesses through the redevelopment of the current bus station.

1.3.4 Stockport Interchange will have improved passenger facilities including:

Æ A ticket and information outlet, retail and café facilities; Æ High quality, fully accessible toilets and baby changing facilities; Æ A covered passenger concourse with a seated waiting area; Æ Secure cycle parking facilities; Æ Enhanced passenger security and CCTV; Æ Clear and concise electronic passenger information; and Æ Improved taxi facilities.

1.3.5 Stockport Interchange will also have improved links to the railway station, a cycle hub and remain situated on the Trans Pennine Trail (TPT).

1.3.6 This development alongside TCAP will see a safer, more accessible environment created for pedestrians and cyclists by limiting access for traffic into Mersey Square. This will be made possible through the construction of a new access route to the bus station from Heaton Lane, via a new road bridge across the River Mersey at Astley Street for buses, taxis and pedestrians.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 5

1.3.7 The Stockport Interchange project will be delivered in phases; the first phase will include the construction of a new bridge over the River Mersey, connecting the new interchange with Heaton Lane via Astley Street.

1.3.8 The proposals are shown in Figure 1.2 below:

Figure 1-2 Stockport Interchange Proposals

1.3.9 The provision of a facility that not only caters for the needs of passengers today and in the future but also recognises the heritage context of its surroundings has been ensured in the development of the design.

1.3.10 Stockport Interchange will provide a modern covered and central concourse with enhanced links for pedestrians between the new facility and the town centre. New lift access will improve links between the Stockport Interchange, the A6 and the railway station.

1.3.11 Provision for pedestrians and cyclists between the TPT and the town centre will also be improved through the introduction of a new route.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 6

1.3.12 SMBC and TfGM are currently exploring potential residential, commercial and other development opportunities which might be appropriate for construction in conjunction with Stockport Interchange. This will attract more investment into Stockport and would further support the regeneration of the borough. These proposals will be subject to further, more localised consultation in advance of a planning application being submitted.

1.3.13 The interchange forms part of the wider Greater Manchester Local Growth Deal Programme, which is being funded by Central Government and local contributions.

1.4 REPORT STRUCTURE

1.4.1 Following this introduction:

Æ Chapter 2 presents the consultation methodology; Æ Chapter 3 analyses the volume and source of the consultation responses; Æ Chapter 4 provides a summary of the TCAP associated public responses’ content; Æ Chapter 5 provides a summary of the Stockport Interchange associated public responses’ content; Æ Chapter 6 outlines the exhibitions’ feedback; Æ Chapter 7 provides a summary of the stakeholder correspondence; and Æ Chapter 8 summarises and concludes the key findings from the consultation.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 7

2 METHODOLOGY 2.1.1 This chapter presents the consultation methodology including details of the aims and objectives, audience, awareness raising, methods of consultation and approach to analysis.

2.2 CONSULTATION AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

2.2.1 The purpose of the consultation was to inform stakeholders and members of the public of the proposals that form the TCAP Phase 2 schemes and Stockport Interchange project and seek their views.

2.2.2 A key focus of the consultation was engagement with business groups, reflecting the nature of key town centre land uses and the focus of the proposals on supporting the local economy.

2.2.3 The consultation has been undertaken during a period when the TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange proposals are still at a formative stage, and has presented detailed information about the proposals to allow those consulted to provide intelligent considerations and an informed response.

2.2.4 SMBC and TfGM undertook a joint consultation for the TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange proposals because of the schemes’ relationship to one-another with respect to timescales, supplementary measures and synergistic benefits. It was also considered that a joint consultation would be more convenient for stakeholders and members of the public as opposed to two separate consultation exercises.

2.2.5 The four week consultation period has allowed adequate time for responses to be submitted using a variety of media.

2.2.6 The primary objectives of the consultation were to:

Æ undertake a consultation for the TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange proposals; Æ undertake a robust consultation to support major scheme business cases and planning applications; Æ inform stakeholders including the public, local businesses and interest groups of the proposals and capture their comments; Æ ensure that community engagement activities were fully accessible, informative and relevant to the participants; Æ engage with those directly affected by the proposals to inform any mitigation strategy; Æ endeavour to ensure that proposals will not be subject to future legal challenge; and Æ minimise objections to the planning applications.

2.2.7 Following the consultation period SMBC and TfGM will continue to work to ensure that information is communicated with regards to the development of the proposals. The communications will seek to raise the profile of the projects and engender a sense of community ownership.

2.2.8 Furthermore stakeholders including the public, local businesses and interest groups will be updated and informed of any negative impacts that may be caused in the local area as the proposals are developed, as well as any associated mitigation measures.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 8

2.3 AUDIENCE

2.3.1 Through the consultation, the main groups that have been engaged with are:

Æ residents and businesses in the town centre area; Æ users of the local transport network; and Æ key local stakeholders including statutory consultees, business organisations, special interest groups and politicians. 2.4 AWARENESS RAISING

2.4.1 The SMBC Information and Communications Team have led the communications elements of the consultation in partnership with TfGM colleagues.

2.4.2 In addition to the methods of consultation detailed in the following section, timely news/press releases have been issued throughout the consultation to local media, and a range of awareness- raising public information materials have been produced and distributed. This primarily signposted people to the website and, where possible, other ways in which the public could provide their views and has included:

Æ yellow road signs on key routes into Stockport town centre signposting to SMBC’s ‘Have your say’ web pages; Æ posters at Stockport Bus Station and on bus stops/shelters in Stockport; Æ updates on the SMBC website main page; and Æ Twitter and Facebook updates (including a Facebook advertisement targeted at local residents and those of nearby areas who travel into Stockport). 2.5 CONSULTATION SUPPORT

2.5.1 A dedicated telephone helpline (0161 474 2299, 9am-5pm Monday-Friday) and email mailbox ([email protected]) was active throughout the consultation period to respond to scheme/consultation queries and take associated comments.

2.6 METHODS OF CONSULTATION

2.6.1 This section provides a summary of the main methods of consultation applied. Chapter 3-7 details the response to these methods of consultation.

LEAFLET

2.6.2 A combined TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange leaflet was distributed to approximately 28,000 properties within the town centre. The leaflet, included at Appendix C, provided a text summary and plans of the TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange proposals.

2.6.3 The area of distribution included residential and business properties and is shown in Figure C1 at Appendix C.

2.6.4 A response form and pre-paid return envelope was provided with the leaflet, as well as a link to an online version of the form, however, it was recognised that respondents would need additional information beyond that contained within the leaflet in order to inform their response. Therefore, throughout the leaflet signposts were provided to ways in which respondents could find out more information about the proposals such as the website, exhibitions, telephone helpline and email mailbox.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 9

2.6.5 The leaflet was also distributed to key stakeholders and provided at the exhibitions and other meetings, as detailed later in this section.

2.6.6 A leaflet could be requested via the telephone helpline in audiotape, CD, easy-read / large print or braille format. A British Sign Language film based on the content of the leaflet was also available on the TfGM web pages.

RESPONSE FORM

2.6.7 As stated above, a hard copy response form and pre-paid return envelope was provided in the approximate 28,000-property leaflet distribution. There was also a hard copy response form and envelope within each of the leaflets provided at the exhibitions and other meetings.

2.6.8 A copy of the response form is included at Appendix D.

2.6.9 In addition to the hard copy response form, the pre-paid envelope provided the opportunity for respondents to submit other, miscellaneous written / photographic correspondence for consideration.

2.6.10 An online version of the response form was provided via a link on the project web pages and signposted to by the leaflet.

2.6.11 Furthermore, a response form could be requested via the telephone helpline or email mailbox, including in audiotape, CD, easy-read / large print or braille format.

2.6.12 The response form sought the following feedback:

Æ views on the highway, pedestrian, cycling and public transport improvements associated with the TCAP Phase 2 proposals; Æ views on the environmental impacts of the TCAP Phase 2 proposals; Æ other views on the TCAP Phase 2 proposals; Æ views on the facilities planned at Stockport Interchange, and aspects of the design of personal importance; Æ views on the possibility of residential, commercial and other development opportunities as part of the Stockport Interchange proposals; Æ other views on the Stockport Interchange proposals; Æ respondent travel and activity information with respect to Stockport town centre; and Æ respondent postcode, gender, age, disability and ethnic information to capture the profile of respondents.

2.6.13 The feedback captured from the response forms is summarised in Chapter 4-5.

WEB PAGES

2.6.14 Project information web pages (www.stockport.gov.uk/towncentretransport, www.tfgm.com/interchanges/Stockport) were created primarily to provide:

Æ further details of the proposals, including scheme descriptions and drawings; Æ a link to the online response form; and Æ information about how to find out more via the exhibitions, telephone helpline and email mailbox.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 10

2.6.15 A link to the consultation web pages was provided on

Æ SMBC’s ‘Have your say’ web pages (www.stockport.gov.uk/haveyoursay); and Æ TfGM’s ‘Latest News’ section of the home page (www.tfgm.com).

2.6.16 The web pages were a key information source for the TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange proposals and were signposted to in all consultation and promotional material.

EXHIBITIONS

2.6.17 Nine exhibitions were held during the consultation period primarily to provide residents and businesses the opportunity to find out more about the TCAP Phase 2 and/or Stockport Interchange proposals and consultation by speaking to the SMBC and/or TfGM project teams directly. Attendees were encouraged to comment using the hard copy (provided) and online response forms, but comments were also recorded by project team attendees at the exhibitions themselves.

2.6.18 As identified in Table 2.1 below, a variety of accessible venues were selected for the events on weekdays, at the weekend, in the day and during the evening to enable as many people as possible to participate in the consultation.

2.6.19 Furthermore, the exhibition locations were selected to be in close proximity to anyone who may have an interest in or be affected by the proposals.

Table 2-1 Consultation Exhibitions DATE TIME LOCATION Thursday 12th November 2015 8am – 10am Stockport Railway Station Thursday 12th November 2015 3.30pm – 7.30pm Stockport Railway Station Saturday 14th November 2015 10am – 5pm Stockport Railway Station Monday 16th November 2015 10am – 7.30pm Stockport Town Hall Thursday 19th November 2015 8am – 10am Stockport Bus Station Thursday 19th November 2015 3.30pm – 7.30pm Stockport Bus Station Saturday 21st November 2015 10am – 4pm 76/78 Princes Street (Stockport Town Centre) Friday 27th November 2015 10am – 4pm 76/78 Princes Street (Stockport Town Centre) Saturday 5th December 2015 10am – 5pm Stockport Bus Station

2.6.20 The events were promoted via the consultation leaflet, project information web pages and posters at Stockport Bus Station and on bus stops/shelters in Stockport. SMBC and TfGM’s presence at each event was identified by pull-up banner stands (Railway and Bus Stations) and posters (Town Hall and Princes Street).

2.6.21 The feedback captured from the exhibitions is summarised in Chapter 4-5 and detailed in Chapter 6.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

2.6.22 Engagement with stakeholder groups has been an important method of gathering feedback on the TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange proposals.

2.6.23 Through a combination of written correspondence and meetings, the project team has sought the views of residents, interest groups and local businesses in the town centre area.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 11

2.6.24 The email included at Appendix E was distributed to the following stakeholder groups with the consultation leaflet attached:

Æ Local councillors; Æ Statutory regional and local bodies; Æ Stockport Traffic Management Unit; Æ Public transport operators; Æ Freight and taxi driver associations; Æ Local interest and heritage groups; Æ Local business groups and large employers in Stockport; Æ Stockport colleges; and Æ Stockport housing associations.

2.6.25 Furthermore, the ‘TCAP Consultation Phase 2’ report included at Appendix F was presented at the Werneth (9th November 2015), Heatons and Reddish (9th November) and Central Stockport (12th November) Area Committee meetings.

2.6.26 As stated previously, some of the TCAP Phase 2 schemes were included within the consultation undertaken by SMBC in autumn 2014, during which stakeholders’ overall opinion of TCAP was sought.

2.6.27 Prior to the formal consultation period, TfGM held meetings/site visits with the following stakeholders to inform the development of the Stockport Interchange proposals being consulted on:

Æ TPT Group (10th March 2015); Æ Stockport Owner Driver Association (SODA) (7th July 2015); Æ Disability Stockport (8th July 2015); Æ Stockport Traffic Management Unit (TMU) (9th July 2015); Æ Stockport Cycle User Group (CUG) (16th July 2015); Æ TfGM Disability Design Reference Group (DDRG) (23rd July 2015); and Æ Stockport Town Centre Business and Retail Forum (29th July 2015).

2.6.28 During the consultation period SMBC and/or TfGM representatives presented a summary of the proposals at the stakeholder group meetings identified by Table 2.2.

Table 2-2 Stakeholder Group Meetings STAKEHOLDER / MEETING DATE STAKEHOLDER DETAILS

Stockport Traffic Management th Members of this group include representatives of the 5 November 2015 Unit emergency services The Task Force advises the Executive on and Stockport Town Centre – M60 th 9 November 2015 oversee the regeneration of the Town Centre and Gateway Task Force M60 Gateway area th The Committee represents the wards of Bredbury & Werneth Area Committee 9 November 2015 Woodley and Bredbury Green & Romiley. The Committee represents the wards of Heatons Heatons and Reddish Area 9th November 2015 North, Heatons South, Reddish North and Reddish Committee South

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 12

Members of the OLG include First Bus, Arriva and TfGM Bus Operators’ Liaison th 10 November 2015 Stagecoach; the three largest bus operators in Group (OLG) Greater Manchester Disability Stockport assists and supports people with Disability Stockport 11th November 2015 physical disabilities and/or sensory loss or impairments th Wholesale electrical distributors based on Daw T.N. Robinson Ltd. 11 November 2015 Bank, Stockport TfGM Disability Design TfGM’s DDRG provide balanced, constructive 12th November 2015 Reference Group (DDRG) advice on design solutions The Committee represents the wards of Brinnington Central Stockport Area 12th November 2015 & Central, Davenport & Cale Green, Edgeley and Committee Cheadle Heath and Manor The CUG provides an opportunity for members of Stockport Cycle User Group 18th, 26th November the public, Council officers and Councillors to (CUG) 2015 discuss aspects of cycling in Stockport, including ways to further develop what is available to cyclists This free network, hosted by Stockport Council and South Manchester Financial 19th November 2015 Stockport Economic Alliance, is open to all locally and Professional Network based finance and professional service businesses One of the largest bus operators in Greater Stagecoach 19th November 2015 Manchester The LAF are an outside body advising SMBC on Stockport Local Access Forum rd 23 November 2015 improvements to public access for outdoor (LAF) recreation and sustainable travel Greater Manchester Chamber th The GMCoC represent the interests of thousands of 24 November 2015 of Commerce (GMCoC) businesses in Greater Manchester This forum provides the overarching link across all of Stockport Town Centre the town centre groups and associations and is 25th November 2015 Business and Retail Forum represented by a wide range of businesses and retailers Friends of Woodbank, Vernon 30th November, 10th A community group helping to develop and improve and Poise (FWVP) December 2015 Woodbank Park and Vernon Park The Public Rights of Way (PRoW) team protects Stockport’s footpath and bridleway and byway network by carrying out routine checks and also Public Rights of Way Forum 3rd December 2015 inspects PRoW in response to public reports relating to physical obstruction, vegetation blocking the footpaths and poor surfacing The TPT is a long-distance path running from coast to coast across Northern England (and through Trans Pennine Trail (TPT) 8th December 2015 Stockport) entirely on surfaced paths and using only Group gentle gradients. It forms part of European walking route E8 and is part of the National Cycle Network Walthew House is an independent local charity Walthew House (Stockport th supporting people in Stockport who are blind, Institute for the Blind the Deaf 16 December 2015 visually impaired, Deaf or hard of hearing or who and the Dumb)* have dual sensory loss The Stockport Economic Alliance is an active Stockport Economic Alliance* 21st December 2015 partnership of senior business representatives from Stockport’s major employers The National Federation of Shopmobility (NFSUK) th schemes allow access to wheelchairs and scooters Shopmobility* 12 January 2016 to provide greater access to shopping facilities, giving freedom and independence *comments will be considered in Chapter 7 despite the meeting taking place after the formal consultation period.

2.6.29 In addition to the above, throughout the design development process there has been ongoing engagement with statutory consultees including the Environment Agency (EA), SMBC Ecological and Arboriculture Officers, Statutory Undertakers and conservation officers.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 13

2.6.30 The design teams have also liaised with potentially affected land owners and tenants as appropriate.

2.6.31 The stakeholder feedback captured is detailed in Chapter 7.

2.7 APPROACH TO ANALYSIS

2.7.1 Response forms submitted online were automatically entered into a database to a pre-defined variable specification for all ‘closed questions’ (i.e. where a list of options was provided for the respondent to choose the most appropriate answer or answers). The hard copy response forms received were subject to a manual data entry exercise, using the same data map as that for the online responses to assign numerical values to all data contained within the form (e.g. yes=1, no=2).

2.7.2 All data was double entered to ensure a high level of accuracy. The databases for the hard copy and online response forms were merged to create one complete data file.

2.7.3 Since respondents to the consultation are self-selected, the findings cannot be said to be representative of the total population within the scope of the study area, and therefore standard parametric statistical analysis cannot be applied to the data.

VERBATIM COMMENTS

2.7.4 A comprehensive log of all verbatim comments made during the consultation has been collated. The purpose of the comments log is to record all comments received in a single database to assist in responding to comments and developing the designs of the TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange proposals.

2.7.5 The comments collated include those provided via phone calls, emails, hard copy/online response forms and exhibitions throughout the consultation. In order to quantify the type of comments that have been made, the comments log categorises the comments by scheme (or ‘general’), category (e.g. Highway Improvements) and the nature of the comment received.

2.7.6 For the TCAP Phase 2 proposals, the comments received have been broken down as follows:

Æ Positive / supportive; Æ Neutral / no feeling either way; Æ Negative / against; Æ Not enough; Æ Bus route / service / stop; Æ Railway station access / facility / services; Æ Pedestrian / disabled / cycle access / routes / facilities / signage; Æ Public realm / shared space; Æ Highway improvements / traffic signals / road widening; Æ Traffic routing; Æ Road safety; Æ Congestion; Æ Parking; Æ Trees / vegetation / green space / rivers;

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 14

Æ Air quality / noise; Æ Security; Æ Scheme cost; Æ Economy; Æ Heritage; Æ Construction / materials; and Æ Consultation process.

2.7.7 Given the level of detail of the comments received, this report presents an overview of the feedback regarding the TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange proposals. The comments log will be used by the project teams to enable consideration of the greater detail contained therein.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 15

3 RESPONSE (VOLUME AND SOURCE) 3.1.1 This chapter analyses the volume and source of the consultation responses received with respect to the TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange proposals.

3.2 NUMBER OF RESPONSES

3.2.1 Table 3.1 below summarises the volume of responses received via the various methods of consultation.

Table 3-1 Consultation Responses NO. OF CONTACTS METHOD OF RESPONSE / RESPONDENTS Telephone calls 9 Emails 23 379 (2 of which Hard copy response form stakeholder) 47 (1 of which Online response form stakeholder)

3.2.2 Additionally, a number of phone calls and emails were received regarding the TCAP Phase 1 schemes and were responded to appropriately.

3.3 EXHIBITION ATTENDANCE

3.3.1 Table 3.2 below summarises the event attendance throughout the consultation.

Table 3-2 Consultation Interaction NO. OF EXHIBITION ATTENDEES 12/11/15 (AM) – Stockport Railway Station - 12/11/15 (PM) – Stockport Railway Station - 14/11/15 – Stockport Railway Station - 16/11/15 – Stockport Town Hall 14 19/11/15 (AM) – Stockport Bus Station - 19/11/15 (PM) – Stockport Bus Station - 21/11/15 – 76/78 Princes Street (Stockport 60 Town Centre) 27/11/15 – 76/78 Princes Street (Stockport 33 Town Centre) 05/12/15 – Stockport Bus Station -

3.3.2 Notably, the attendance at exhibitions summarised by Table 3.2 is based on how many attendees signed in at each event; it is recognised that this may not include all those that were in attendance.

3.3.3 No sign-in sheets were provided at the exhibitions at the railway station or bus station because of the nature of the venue, although in addition to through passengers many of those who engaged in conversation with SMBC and/or TfGM representatives stated they had purposely attended the exhibition.

3.3.4 Figure G1 at Appendix G presents the home locations of those who signed in at the exhibitions and provided a full, valid post code within or in proximity to the area of leaflet distribution.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 16

3.3.5 As shown by Figure G1, the exhibitions were reasonably attended by residents from across Stockport, in particular within the area of leaflet distribution. There was a notably high volume of attendees from the Stockport Road West (north of Woodbank Park) areas, with several attendees from further afield including Reddish, Heaton Chapel, Heaton Mersey, Cheadle, Davenport, Romiley, Bredbury, Woodley and Brinnington.

3.4 WEB PAGE VIEWS

3.4.1 There were 3,119 unique visitors to the SMBC project information web pages (www.stockport.gov.uk/towncentretransport) to the end of 14th December 2015. The TfGM project information web pages received 323 visits during the same period.

3.4.2 Furthermore, the Facebook advertisement had a reach of 35,925 profiles and attracted 1,280 clicks.

3.5 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS

3.5.1 The online and paper forms requested that public respondents provide their home postcode. The majority of respondents that submitted a form provided a postcode, with 305 out of 423 (72%, excluding stakeholders) providing it in full.

3.5.2 Figure G2 at Appendix G presents the home post codes of those who provided it in full in their response form (excluding stakeholders).

3.5.3 As shown by Figure G2, there is a broad distribution of respondents across Stockport, in particular within the area of leaflet distribution. There is a notably high volume of respondents in the Edgeley, Didsbury Road and Offerton Lane areas, with a small amount of responses from further afield including Reddish, Heaton Chapel, Heaton Mersey, Cheadle, Davenport, Offerton Green, Romiley, Bredbury and Woodley.

3.6 SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS

GENDER

3.6.1 The online and paper forms requested that respondents provide their gender. Of the 423 public respondents 45% (189) identified themselves as male and 43% (184) as female. 12% (50) stated they preferred not to or did not answer.

3.6.2 This is illustrated in Figure 3.1 below.

Figure 3-1 Respondent Gender

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 17

3.6.3 For comparison purposes the respondent gender information provided is illustrated in Figure 3.2 alongside 2011 Census data for the usual residents of the middle layer super output areas (MSOAs) whose centroids fall within the leaflet distribution area (Stockport 011, 014, 015, 016, 018, 019 and 023).

Figure 3-2 Respondent / Census Gender

3.6.4 As shown by Figure 3.2, when compared to the Census data the respondents are representative of the area with respect to gender.

AGE

3.6.5 Furthermore, the online and paper forms requested that respondents provide their age. The response is illustrated in Figure 3.3 below.

Figure 3-3 Respondent Age

3.6.6 For comparison purposes the respondent age information provided is illustrated in Figure 3.4 alongside the 2011 Census data of usual residents of the same MSOAs as above.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 18

Figure 3-4 Respondent / Census Age

3.6.7 As shown by Figure 3.4, the younger population are somewhat under-represented in the consultation with a low response rate from the under 16 (1, 0%), 16-24 (15, 4%), 25-34 (28, 7%) and 35-44 (47, 11%) age groups when compared to the Census data for the area.

3.6.8 The 45-54 age group response (59, 14%) is representative of the area when compared to the Census data but the older population are somewhat over-represented with a high response rate from the 55-64 (83, 20%), 65-74 (98, 23%) and 75+ (73, 17%) age groups.

ETHNICITY

3.6.9 The online and paper forms also requested that respondents provide their ethnicity. The response is illustrated in Figure 3.5 below.

Figure 3-5 Respondent Ethnicity

3.6.10 For comparison purposes the respondent ethnicity information provided is illustrated in Figure 3.6 alongside the 2011 Census data of usual residents of the same MSOAs as above.

3.6.11 The respondents that provided their ethnicity are largely representative of the area with respect to ethnicity when compared to the Census data, with the Asian or Asian British population slightly under-represented in the consultation (3, 1%).

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 19

Figure 3-6 Respondent / Census Ethnicity

DISABILITY

3.6.12 The online and paper forms requested that respondents indicate whether they have a disability or long term illness. Of the 423 responses (excluding stakeholders) 103 (24%) identified having a disability or long term illness and 274 (65%) identified not. The remaining 46 (10%) stated they preferred not to or did not answer.

3.6.13 This is illustrated in Figure 3.7 below.

Figure 3-7 Respondent Disability

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 20

RELATIONSHIP TO STOCKPORT

3.6.14 Information extracted and analysed through the online and paper forms with regards to respondents’ relationship to Stockport town centre is summarised in Figure 3.8 below. It should be noted that respondents were able to provide more than one answer to this question.

Figure 3-8 Respondent Relationship to Stockport town centre

3.6.15 As shown by Figure 3.8, of the 423 respondents a large proportion identified themselves as living in/near (280, 66%) and/or regularly visiting (276, 65%) Stockport town centre. A reasonable amount of respondents (170, 40%) stated they regularly travel through Stockport town centre.

3.6.16 A small proportion of respondents (66, 16%) identified themselves as working in/near Stockport town centre.

METHOD OF TRAVEL

3.6.17 Information extracted and analysed through the online and paper forms with regards to respondents’ main method of travel when travelling to/from Stockport town centre is summarised in Figure 3.9. It should be noted that respondents were again able to provide more than one answer to this question.

3.6.18 As shown, of the 423 respondents a large proportion identified their main method of travel to/from Stockport town centre as bus (212, 50%) and/or walking (181, 43%). A reasonable amount of respondents identified their main method of travel as driving a car (149, 35%). It should be noted that respondents were able to provide more than one answer to this question.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 21

Figure 3-9 Respondent Method of Travel (to/from Stockport town centre)

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 22

4 RESPONSE (TOWN CENTRE ACCESS PLAN PHASE 2)

4.1.1 This chapter provides a summary of the TCAP associated public responses’ content received during the consultation via telephone, email response forms and exhibitions.

4.1.2 The responses are summarised by the TCAP scheme to which they relate. A variety of ‘general’ TCAP comments are also summarised. No comments were received specific to Scheme 601 (Newbridge Lane – Hillgate to Stanley Street).

4.1.3 Given the level of detail of the comments received, this report presents an overview of the feedback. A comprehensive log of all verbatim comments made during the consultation has been collated and will be used by the project team to enable consideration of the greater detail contained therein.

4.1.4 This chapter also details the miscellaneous public responses received.

4.1.5 A number of comments were made/issues raised/discussions held regarding the TCAP Phase 1 and wider highway schemes/issues in the area, including maintenance and road safety concerns, which have been brought to the attention of SMBC as appropriate.

4.1.6 Notably, some responses and the comments within have been categorised as raising more than one topic.

4.2 SCHEME 108 – HIGHER HILLGATE

4.2.1 A total of three, neutral responses were received regarding Scheme 108 – Higher Hillgate. The topics referenced within these public respondent comments are summarised in Table 4.1 below.

Table 4-1 Scheme 108 Comments NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Comments relate to the need to optimise pedestrian crossing times, the danger of shared pedestrian / Pedestrian route / facility 3 cycleways and whether a crossing facility is required on Higher Hillgate. Comments relate to the need to optimise pedestrian Traffic Signals crossing times (as above) and the build-up of traffic on 2 Higher Hillgate at the existing signal controlled junction. Cycle route / facility Respondent raises the danger of shared pedestrian / 1 Road Safety cycleways (as above). 1 Respondent highlights the build-up of traffic on Higher Congestion 1 Hillgate at the existing signal controlled junction (as above). Parking Respondent raises issues with parked vehicles on Higher 1 Disabled access Hillgate, and the implication this has for disabled residents. 1

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 23

4.3 SCHEME 109 – HEMPSHAW LANE / CHRISTIE STREET

4.3.1 A total of two responses were received regarding Scheme 109 – Hempshaw Lane / Christie Street. The topics referenced within these public respondent comments are summarised in Table 4.2.

Æ Number of positive responses: 1 Æ Number of responses suggesting the proposals are not enough: 1

Table 4-2 Scheme 109 Comments NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Respondents suggest the existing layout is dangerous, with Road safety 2 one in favour of the proposals. Pedestrian route / facility In line with the above, the other respondent suggests traffic 1 needs to be slowed near the junction, and a pedestrian / Cycle route / facility 1 cyclist crossing facility is needed on Hempshaw Lane.

4.4 SCHEME 303 – KING STREET WEST (GRADWELL STREET TO RIVER MERSEY)

4.4.1 A total of seven responses were received regarding Scheme 303 – King Street West (Gradwell Street to River Mersey). The topics referenced within these public respondent comments are summarised in Table 4.3.

Æ Number of positive responses: 3 Æ Number of negative responses: 3 Æ Number of neutral responses: 1

Table 4-3 Scheme 303 Comments NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Highway improvements Respondents raise concern over Scheme 303 associated 4 Traffic routing congestion in the area due to the revised routing of traffic, 4 Congestion one suggesting that the cycle lane on Chestergate be 2 Cycle route / facility reduced but one stating cycle improvements to be positive. 2 Road safety One supportive respondent suggests the existing layout is 1 Pedestrian route / facility dangerous for pedestrians. 1

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 24

4.5 SCHEME 307 – STOCKPORT EXCHANGE PHASE 3-5

4.5.1 A total of 15 responses were received regarding Scheme 307 – Stockport Exchange Phase 3-5. The topics referenced within these public respondent comments are summarised in Table 4.4.

Æ Number of positive responses: 3 Æ Number of neutral responses: 11 Æ Number of responses suggesting the proposals are not enough: 1

Table 4-4 Scheme 307 Comments NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Railway Station / rail services Respondents request various improvements at and around 13 Parking the Railway Station including to pedestrian routes (to 7 Pedestrian route / facility include lighting and covered walkways), drop-off / car 3 Town centre signage parking facilities and vegetation / green space. 1 Highway improvements Respondents also suggest improved signage and taxi- 1 Traffic routing management is required. One respondent stated that the 1 Road safety existing arrangement and traffic routing is dangerous. 1

Trees / vegetation / green One respondent suggests that pedestrians at the Railway 1 space Station have been ignored.

4.6 SCHEME 402 – KNIGHTSBRIDGE AND GREAT PORTWOOD STREET

4.6.1 A total of one response was received regarding Scheme 402 – Knightsbridge and Great Portwood Street.

4.6.2 The respondent was supportive of the Scheme 402 proposals, suggesting the highway improvements be widened where possible to further ease congestion.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 25

4.7 SCHEME 502 – M60 JUNCTION 1 IMPROVEMENTS - HOLLYWOOD WAY

4.7.1 A total of 16 responses were received regarding Scheme 502 – M60 Junction 1 Improvements - Hollywood Way. The topics referenced within these public respondent comments are summarised in Table 4.5.

Æ Number of positive responses: 7 Æ Number of neutral responses: 7 Æ Number of responses suggesting the proposals are not enough: 2

Table 4-5 Scheme 502 Comments NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Highway improvements Respondents highlight the need and their support for 9 Congestion improvements because of congestion and poor safety at 5 Traffic signals this junction, with the signal timings requiring optimisation. 3 Road safety One respondent is concerned about the capability of the 2 Bus route / service / stop proposals in facilitating upcoming development in the area, 1 one requests speed bumps on Brinksway and another Additional scheme hopes the bus lane is retained on Travis Brow. 1 General support for the inclusion of pedestrian and cycle Cycle route / facility 5 provision within Scheme 502, particularly if well signed, but concern over the use of shared footway / cycleways and Town centre signage 1 maintenance / continuity of cycle routes. Some respondents also express concern that their inclusion will Pedestrian route / facility 1 exacerbate congestion. One respondent suggests the need for parking restrictions Parking 1 on Hardman Street. One respondent states that if ‘properly surfaced in something that is long-lasting and suitable for year-round Construction / materials 1 use, they [the Scheme 502 proposals] will be good for both commuters and leisure users alike’.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 26

4.8 SCHEME 604 – HALL STREET / TURNCROFT LANE

4.8.1 A total of 22 responses were received regarding Scheme 604 – Hall Street / Turncroft Lane. The topics referenced within these public respondent comments are summarised in Table 4.6.

Æ Number of positive responses: 6 Æ Number of neutral responses: 11 Æ Number of negative responses: 1 Æ Number of responses suggesting the proposals are not enough: 4

Table 4-6 Scheme 604 Comments NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Highway improvements Respondents highlight the need and their support for 22 Congestion highway and pedestrian / cyclist improvements / widening 10 because of congestion and poor safety at this junction, with Road safety 6 the signal timings requiring optimisation. Concern is raised, Pedestrian route / facility however, that additional pedestrian / cycle provision will 6 Traffic signals exacerbate the congestion. This junction being on a key 5 Cycle route / facility route for traffic (including HGVs) is identified. Concerns of 5 the impact of the construction works are also raised, Traffic routing 3

Construction / materials One respondent suggests that the pedestrian / cyclist 2 Road widening improvements do not ‘improve general road use’. 1 Two respondents request improvements to the wider Marple – Stockport route, while another suggests Banks Additional scheme Lane needs improvements due to congestion. One 4 respondent suggests further pedestrian / cyclist improvements are needed at the junction. One respondent requested further information on the Consultation Scheme 604 proposals (which has subsequently been 1 provided).

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 27

4.9 SCHEME 606 – STOCKPORT EASTERN CYCLING LINKS

4.9.1 A total of 36 responses were received regarding Scheme 606 – Stockport Eastern Cycling Links. The topics referenced within these public respondent comments are summarised in Table 4.7.

Æ Number of positive responses: 7 Æ Number of neutral responses: 10 Æ Number of negative responses: 15

Route inappropriate / loss of trees / vegetation / green space: 9

Congestion (Newbridge Lane / Welkin Road junction): 4

Security: 2 (1 also negative with respect to loss of trees / vegetation / green space)

Cost: 1 Æ Number of responses suggesting the proposals are not enough: 4

Table 4-7 Scheme 606 Comments NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Cycle route / facility Several comments regarding the provision of this cycle 29 Pedestrian route / facility route, many questioning its necessity or cost. A number of 15 Trees / vegetation / green comments identify concern for other park users with the 12 space presence of cyclists, one suggesting cycle speed-calming Security measures within the park. Some comments are against 6 Heritage (and one in support of) the route being through an area of 1 green space / heritage, while some raise concerns of security should the route be implemented. Three Cost of scheme respondents suggest that the route be extended beyond 1 just the park, and two respondents want horse-rider access to be appropriate. Highway improvements Respondents are concerned about the congestion 6 Congestion implications of the traffic signals included in the Scheme 5 Traffic signals 606 proposals. 4 One respondent raises a road safety concern associated Road safety 1 with fast moving vehicles on the Bredbury Hall access. Maintenance One respondent was concerned about the existing 1 drainage system within Woodbank Park, and another about Construction / materials 1 the surfacing that will be used being appropriate for use. One respondent suggested that residents local to Scheme Consultation 1 606 are not aware of the details within the proposals.

4.10 SCHEME 609 – HEMPSHAW LANE / LOWNDES LANE

4.10.1 A total of one response was received regarding Scheme 609 – Hempshaw Lane / Lowndes Lane.

4.10.2 The respondent suggests that a pedestrian crossing is required on Banks Lane in proximity to the proposals, to link the car park used by parents to Banks Lane School in an effort to ease congestion.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 28

4.11 SCHEMES 702, 703, 706 – WELLINGTON ROAD: SOUTH (LONGSHUT LANE TO GREEK STREET); SOUTH (GREEK STREET TO DAW BANK) AND PARALLEL CYCLE ROUTE; NORTH / HEATON LANE

4.11.1 A total of 32 responses were received regarding Schemes 702 – Wellington Road South (Longshut Lane to Greek Street), 703 – Wellington Road South (Greek Street to Daw Bank) and Parallel Cycle Route and 706 – Wellington Road North / Heaton Lane. The topics referenced within these public respondent comments are summarised in Table 4.8. These responses are considered to be appropriate to all schemes as they relate to the A6 Wellington Road.

Æ Number of positive responses: 4 Æ Number of neutral responses: 9 Æ Number of negative responses: 10

Bus / cycle lanes cause congestion: 10

Parking (lack of): 1 (also negative with respect to bus lanes) Æ Number of responses suggesting the proposals are not enough: 9

Table 4-8 Scheme 702, 703, 706 Comments NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Several comments regarding the proposed highway and Highway improvements cycle facility improvements, many suggesting congestion 22 (and associated air quality) is a problem that is worsened Congestion by the routing of traffic, number of traffic signals and 12 presence of bus / cycle lanes (existing and within the proposals). Bus route / service / stop 10 However, one respondent suggests that the A6 be one- Cycle route / facility lane in each direction to accommodate a segregated cycle 6 lane and two request cycle lanes on the A6. A further respondent suggests that the left turn only into Longshut Air quality Lane be for cyclists too (Scheme 702) and the John Street 3 – Lawrence Street (Scheme 703) and Heaton Lane Traffic signals (Scheme 706) cycle proposals are inappropriate and poorly 2 connected. One respondent requests dropped kerbs at side roads and another requests constant bus lanes Hazel Traffic routing Grove – Manchester. 2

Cost of scheme One respondent questions the scheme coming so soon 1 after previous improvements. Pedestrian route / facility Several comments received regarding pedestrian routes 8 and facilities, including the need to enable easy, safe Access to railway station access across the A6 including between the town centre 5 and railway station. One respondent suggests improved Town centre signage town centre signage. 1 One respondent states it is dangerous for pedestrians to cross the A6 (as above), another suggests a segregated cycle lane on the A6 (as above) for road safety reasons, Road Safety 4 one states the A6 is congested (as above) to the extent of being dangerous and another requests motorcycles be permitted in bus lanes for safety reasons.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 29

4.12 SCHEME 706 – WELLINGTON ROAD NORTH / HEATON LANE

4.12.1 Additionally, a total of nine responses were received specific to Scheme 706 – Wellington Road North / Heaton Lane. The topics referenced within these public respondent comments are summarised in Table 4.9.

Æ Number of positive responses: 2 Æ Number of neutral responses: 6 Æ Number of negative responses: 1

Table 4-9 Scheme 706 Comments NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Public realm / shared space Several comments regarding the removal of traffic from 6 Mersey Square to create an area of public realm, and the Traffic routing 3 improvement (including safety) this will bring for Pedestrian route / facility pedestrians and the economy if implemented well (and not 2 Road safety too expensive). 1

Economy 1 One respondent suggests that the refurbishment of Mersey Cost of scheme Square is unnecessary. 1 One respondent raises concern over the increase in bus traffic on Heaton Lane as a result of the re-routing. A Bus route further respondent hopes buses will still stop outside 3 Mersey Way, while one suggests the bus shelter fronting Debenhams needs improvement.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 30

4.14 SCHEME 801 – TRAVIS BROW / A6 LINK AND GEORGE’S ROAD

4.14.1 A total of 20 responses were received regarding Scheme 801 – Travis Brow / A6 Link and George’s Road. The topics referenced within these public respondent comments are summarised in Table 4.10 below.

Æ Number of positive responses: 7 Æ Number of neutral responses: 5 Æ Number of negative responses: 9

Demolition of the Midland pub: 7

Cycle route not needed / inappropriate: 2

Table 4-10 Scheme 801 Comments NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Highway improvements All responses are regarding the proposed highway 20 Heritage improvements; several object to the demolition of the 8 Economy Midland pub on economic / heritage grounds, while others 3 Traffic routing support the improvements because of traffic routing / 4 congestion.

Congestion There are suggestions that alternatives may be more cost 3 effective and hope that the improvements will improve traffic routing / congestion. Two respondents suggest the proposals will improve cycling while two suggest the cycle facilities are not needed Cycle route / facility 4 / inappropriate (one of which stating it is ‘needless expense’). One respondent suggests the proposals will provide an Pedestrian route / facility improvement for pedestrians while another suggests the 2 pedestrian route is not appropriate.

4.15 SCHEMES 901, 902 – HEATON NORRIS - TOWN CENTRE LINKS; PENNY LANE - TOWN CENTRE LINKS

4.15.1 A total of three responses were received regarding the proposed pedestrian / cycle improvements as part of Scheme 901 – Heaton Norris - Town Centre Links and Scheme 902 - Penny Lane - Town Centre Links.

4.15.2 One respondent supports the proposals subject to the use of suitable surfacing, while another objects to the covering of the cobbles (Scheme 901) because of their heritage.

4.15.3 The other respondent requests segregation between pedestrians, cyclists and horses for safety reasons (Scheme 901) and an alternative route for horses (avoiding the ramp, Scheme 902).

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 31

4.16 SCHEME 906 – BELMONT WAY CYCLEWAY

4.16.1 A total of four responses were received regarding the proposed cycle improvements as part of Scheme 906 – Belmont Way Cycleway.

4.16.2 One respondent was in support of the proposals while another requested information about the anticipated timescale for implementation (which has subsequently been provided).

4.16.3 One respondent was concerned about the number of trees that would need to be removed to implement the proposals, while another suggested that a shared pedestrian / cycleway is inappropriate at this location.

4.17 SCHEME 907 – LANCASHIRE HILL ROUNDABOUT

4.17.1 A total of two responses were received regarding Scheme 907 – Lancashire Hill Roundabout.

4.17.2 One respondent supported improvement to the pedestrian route under the roundabout, while the other suggested that the junction requires signal control.

4.18 GENERAL COMMENTS

4.18.1 A total of 891 responses contained general comments. The topics referenced within these public respondent comments are summarised in Table 4.11 below.

Table 4-11 General Comments NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Requests, comments and suggestions regarding various / Pedestrian route / facility 188 widespread pedestrian / cycle improvements, including concern of the use of shared pedestrian / cycleways and Cycle route / facility 179 the lack of joined-up cycle routes. Requests, comments and suggestions regarding various Bus route / service / stop 175 bus routes, services and facilities. Requests and suggestions for various highway Highway improvements 81 improvements. Queries and suggestions about the possible extension of Metrolink 80 Metrolink to Stockport. Requests, comments and suggestions regarding the Railway Station / rail services 76 railway station and available services. Congestion Comments and suggestions about widespread congestion. 71 Requests and comments about exiting road / footway / Maintenance 68 cycleway surfacing issues and the amount of litter. Comments about the cost, availability and accessibility of Parking parking at various locations and localised on-street parking 60 issues. Comments and suggestions about widespread road safety Road safety 56 concerns. Comments and concern about the disruption during Construction / materials construction, and the quality of the materials that will be 38 used.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 32

Requests and suggestions for wider schemes including: Hempshaw Lane, Stockport Exchange – Edgeley, Greek Street roundabout; Didsbury Road; King Street West; Marple – Stockport; Additional scheme A560 Bredbury; 35 Hazel Grove; M60 junctions 2, 3 and 27 and widening; Turncroft Lane, Avondale Road rat-run prevention; HGV routing at Higher Hillgate; Pedestrian crossing on Gilmore Street; and Bypass / relief roads. Requests for the provision of green space, and concern Trees / vegetation / green that trees / vegetation will be removed to facilitate 31 space schemes. Comments regarding widespread poor air quality that could Air Quality be improved by pedestrian / cycle / public transport 30 incentives / improvements. Concern about the attractiveness of Stockport for visitors Economy 30 and businesses, and suggestions for regeneration. Comments about the routing of all vehicles (including Traffic routing 29 buses and HGVs), and areas of congestion. Concerns over the amount of money being spent, several Cost 29 comments questioning the need for cycle improvements. Requests, comments and suggestions regarding various / Disabled access 25 widespread disabled access improvements. Comments about the consultation itself, including the Consultation availability of information and whether the associated 17 responses will be considered. Comments about the difficulty of access between the Access to railway station 15 railway station and elsewhere. Requests and suggestions for various traffic signal Traffic signals improvements, with optimisation and priority as 13 appropriate. Suggestions to make the riversides more accessible and Rivers 12 used as pedestrian / cycle routes. Comments and concern about security, in particular at/on Security public transport facilities/services and associated with 7 secluded pedestrian / cycle routes. Requests for wider use of public realm / shared space in Public realm / shared space 6 and around the town centre. Requests for improved directional signage in and around Town centre signage 6 the town centre (pedestrian / cyclist / vehicle). Noise Comments regarding noise associated with vehicles. 4 Heritage Requests to retain Stockport’s heritage. 2 Concern about parking restriction enforcement and the use Enforcement 2 of (restricted access) Warren Street by all vehicles.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 33

4.19 MISCELLANEOUS

4.19.1 The miscellaneous public responses received during the consultation are summarised below. This correspondence has been provided to the project team for consideration as appropriate.

HARD COPY RESPONSE FORM ENCLOSURES

4.19.2 One hard copy response form return contained a letter questioning what is trying to be achieved by the TCAP proposals; for tourism, refurbishment (for commuters) or logistical (pass through) purposes.

4.19.3 Another hard copy response form return contained an annotated map identifying concerns with the proposed cycle route of TCAP Scheme 606, and suggesting an alternative alignment.

4.19.4 A further hard copy response form return contained another annotated map, showing widespread pedestrian / cyclist improvement suggestions and a “3 level bus station”.

LETTERS

4.19.5 A letter dated 25th November 2015 was received in response to the TCAP Phase 2 proposals, with the respondent’s previous consultation response enclosed “because the general points are still valid”.

4.19.6 A “simple mapping graphic which compares the area of the town devoted to highways planning with other urban areas” was also enclosed, comparing Stockport’s 51% ‘area for highways’ with Lincoln, York and Preston (25%-33%). Considering this, the respondent questions “if there is a point at which highways-led planning in this town stops”.

4.19.7 Another letter, dated 29th November 2015, provides comments on the safety, congestion and habitat implications of TCAP Scheme 606 and the effectiveness of the consultation with respect to nearby residents. The respondent also questions the use of the park by cyclists given the conflict this would cause with other park users.

OTHER

4.19.8 One respondent provided a document identifying alternative proposals to the TCAP schemes (in particular Phase 1 Scheme 303), which was presented as a thesis for the respondent’s MA in Architecture and Urbanism at Manchester School of Architecture, September 2015.

4.19.9 A press article in the Stockport Express on 2nd December 2015 suggested the provision of a funicular railway at the side of the viaduct.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 34

5 RESPONSE (STOCKPORT INTERCHANGE)

5.1.1 This chapter provides a summary of the comments that were made about the proposals for Stockport Interchange by members of the public during the consultation via telephone, email, response forms and exhibitions.

5.1.2 The responses are summarised according to the facility or aspect of the interchange design to which they relate. A range of ‘general’ Stockport Transport Interchange comments are also summarised.

5.1.3 In light of the quantity and detailed nature of the comments received, this report presents an overview of the feedback. A comprehensive record of all verbatim comments made during the consultation has been passed to the Stockport Interchange project team for their consideration and use as the scheme progresses.

5.1.4 Some responses and comments have been categorised as referring to more than one topic.

5.1.5 Analysis has sought to categorise the nature of the comments received (i.e. positive, negative, neutral), whilst recognising that this will always be a subjective exercise.

5.2 ASPECTS OF THE INTERCHANGE DESIGN THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO USERS

5.2.1 The consultation response form asked respondents to indicate which aspects of the interchange design are most important to them from a list of options. Three hundred and fifty three respondents answered this question. Respondents could choose more than one aspect.

5.2.2 Respondents often provided multiple comments on differing aspects of the interchange design and features. Where there are differentials between the number of responses received and comments recorded, this is due to the nature of those responses.

5.2.3 Table 5.1 shows which features of the interchange were rated most important by people who participated in the public consultation.

Table 5-1 Comments on Aspects of Interchange Design that are Important to Users NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT COMMENTS Safety and security measures 305 Covered waiting areas 270 Ease of transfer to other transport 262 Changing and toilet facilities 217 Signposting to other locations 184 Modern design 115 Other 55

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 35

5.2.4 Respondents made 55 other suggestions regarding interchange design which are shown in Table 5.2.

Table 5-2 Other Suggestions of Aspects of Interchange Design that are Important to Users NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Respondents request an office or area where they can Transport information obtain information and view electronic information screens. 8 Respondents highlight the need for lifts and access for Accessibility wheelchairs and mobility scooters, along with 24 hour 6 access. Respondents state that the interchange’s appearance is Appearance important and suggest it should recognise the heritage of 5 its surroundings and incorporate greenery. Respondents would like the tram network to be extended to Metrolink 5 Stockport. Respondents highlight the need to keep the interchange Cleanliness clean by choosing materials that are easy to clean and 4 employing cleaners. Links to transport and other Respondents state that links to the River Mersey, historical 6 locations locations, shops and transport should be considered. One respondent suggests generating electricity from the Environmental issues 3 River Mersey. Parking Respondents ask for parking to be considered. 3 Respondents request more frequent services and Bus services 2 inspectors. Seating Respondents highlight the need for seating. 2 Respondents say lighting would make interchange users Lighting 2 feel safe. Wi-Fi Respondents would like Wi-Fi to be available. 2 Respondents suggest other businesses and parts of Wider regeneration 2 Stockport could benefit from investment. Support for potential Respondents express support for development if there is 2 development demand for it. Respondents comment on the lay-out: with one asking if Lay-out 2 there was adequate space for buses to operate. Respondent suggests that formal queuing be adopted in Queuing 1 the interchange. Total 55

5.3 COMMENTS ON THE FACILITIES PLANNED

5.3.1 A total of 215 comments were received on the facilities planned (Questions 3 on the response form). They are summarised below, with the facilities generating the largest number of comments shown first.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 36

LIFT TO THE A6

5.3.2 A total of 53 responses were received regarding the inclusion of lift access from the interchange to the A6. The topics referenced within these public respondent comments are summarised in Table 5.3.

Æ Number of positive responses: 21 Æ Number of neutral responses: 5 Æ Number of negative responses: 8 Æ Number of responses suggesting the proposals are not enough: 19 Table 5-3 Lift to A6 Comments NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Support for the inclusion of a Respondents state that this would benefit many people. 21 lift Extension of the lift/escalator to Respondents state a lift or covered escalator should be 12 the rail station included from the interchange to the railway station. Respondents state there is still a steep walk from the A6 to Not enough 7 the railway station. Respondents question the safety or said some people may Safety 3 be scared to use the lift on their own. Respondents state the lift would be a potential target for Maintenance 3 vandalism and must be kept functioning. Respondents state that the lift seems to be further from the Location 2 railway station than the steps. More information Respondents request more information about the lift. 2 Capacity Respondent asks what will be the capacity of the lift. 1 Hours of operation Respondent asks will the lift be available to use at night. 1 Duration Respondent asks how long the lift journey will take. 1 Total 53

ENHANCED PASSENGER SECURITY AND CCTV

5.3.3 A total of 36 responses (encompassing 38 comments) were received regarding the proposals to include CCTV and other measures to improve passenger security. The topics referenced within these public respondent comments are summarised in Table 5.4.

Æ Number of positive responses: 27 Æ Number of neutral responses: 4 Æ Number of negative responses: 5

Table 5-4 Enhanced Passenger Security and CCTV Comments NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Respondents welcome CCTV and any other security 25 General support measures to help reduce crime and anti-social behavior and to make them feel safer. Respondents would like to see security patrols in addition 6 Staff to CCTV. Respondents state that a well lit concourse would be 6 Lighting beneficial. Not an issue Respondent states that passenger security is not an issue. 1 Total 38

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 37

COVERED PASSENGER CONCOURSE WITH A SEATED WAITING AREA

5.3.4 A total of 34 responses (encompassing 38 comments) were received regarding the intention to include covered passenger concourse with a seated waiting area in the new transport interchange. The topics referenced within these public respondent comments are summarised in Table 5.5.

Æ Number of positive responses: 20 Æ Number of neutral responses: 9 Æ Number of negative responses: 5 Table 5-5 Covered Passenger Concourse with a Seated Waiting Area Comments NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Respondents welcome the provision of seating in an Seating required 13 attractive waiting area. Cover required Respondents support a covered concourse. 4 Fully enclosed Respondents wish the interchange to be ‘fully enclosed’. 2 Heating Respondents suggest the concourse should be heated. 2 Single concourse Respondents support the single concourse design. 2 Respondents ask if there will be a designated smoking Designated smoking area 2 area. Respondents would prefer money was spent on bus Cost 2 services instead of the waiting area. Additional seating not required Respondent states that more seating is not required. 1 Respondent suggests that seats should face where buses Direction of seating arrive so waiting passengers do not have their back to 1 arriving buses. Cover not required Respondent believes a covered concourse is unnecessary. 1 Respondent suggests that automatic doors should be Automatic doors 1 fitted. Respondent questions if the concourse is big enough to Size 1 accommodate all waiting passengers. Safety Respondent suggests the new waiting area will ‘be safer.’ 1 No smoking Respondent would like enforcement of no smoking rules. 1 Total 34

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 38

HIGH QUALITY, FULLY ACCESSIBLE TOILETS AND CHANGING FACILITIES

5.3.5 A total of 27 responses (encompassing 30 comments) were received regarding the proposals to include high quality, fully accessible toilets and changing facilities. The topics referenced within these public respondent comments are summarised in Table 5.6.

Æ Number of positive responses: 18 Æ Number of neutral responses: 4 Æ Number of negative responses: 5 Table 5-6 High Quality, Fully Accessible Toilets and Baby Changing Facilities Comments NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Improve toilets Respondents in favour of improving the toilets. 17 Respondents state that there should be no charge to use 5 No charge the toilets. Respondents would like the toilets to be open throughout 3 Opening hours the hours that buses operate. Respondents urge that the necessary maintenance is Maintenance 2 considered to keep the toilets clean. Respondents asks if there will be disabled toilets and Accessible 2 discourage the use of ‘turnstile’ access. Changing facilities Respondent states that changing facilities are essential. 1 Total 30

SECURE CYCLE PARKING FACILITIES

5.3.6 A total of 21 responses (encompassing 23 comments) were received regarding the intention to include secure parking facilities in the new interchange. The topics referenced within these public respondent comments are summarised in Table 5.7. Some respondents commented on more than one aspect of the proposed cycle parking facilities.

Æ Number of positive responses: 12 Æ Number of neutral responses: 2 Æ Number of negative responses: 7 Table 5-7 Secure Cycle Parking Facilities Comments NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Respondents welcome the provision of secure cycle Secure parking 9 parking. Respondents state cycle parking is not used with two Cycle parking not required 4 respondents questioning if the facility is value for money. Respondents question why cycle storage would be needed Clarity 3 for bus passengers. Respondents state a preference for staffed and ticketed Staffed and ticketed 2 cycle storage facilities. Respondents request Sheffield bike stands are also Sheffield stands 2 provided for people who cycle occasionally. Respondent describes the experience of trying to fit his/her Size 1 bicycle into a locker that was too small. Respondents requested additional facilities for cyclists Cyclists’ facilities within the interchange e.g. a cycle repair shop, free tyre 1 pumps. Respondent suggested the secure parking is on the same Location 1 level as the concourse or below. Total 23

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 39

ELECTRONIC BUS AND RAIL INFORMATION

5.3.7 A total of 19 responses (encompassing 22 comments) were received regarding the proposals to include clear and concise electronic bus and rail information in the new interchange. The topics referenced within these public respondent comments are summarised in Table 5.8. Some respondents commented on more than one aspect of the planned information provision.

Æ Number of positive responses: 14 Æ Number of neutral responses: 5

Table 5-8 Electronic bus and rail information Comments NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Respondents support clear and concise electronic Electronic information 12 passenger information. Respondents urge consideration of the requirements of Accessible information people who have visual impairments to help make 3 information easy to read. Respondents would like to see rail information displayed in Rail information 2 the interchange. Real-time information Respondents would like real-time information. 2 Respondent states PA system should be used to announce PA system 1 any service delays or cancellations. Respondent would like electronic passenger information to Bus 1 be provided on buses. Respondent would like space to be left on electronic Metrolink information display equipment to show information about Metrolink 1 services. Total 22

ATM/CASH MACHINE

5.3.8 A total of ten responses (encompassing 11 comments) were received regarding the intention to include an ATM/cash machine in the new interchange. The topics referenced within these public respondent comments are summarised in Table 5.9. One response included two comments on the proposed ATM/cash machine facility.

Æ Number of positive responses: 3 Æ Number of neutral responses: 7

Table 5-9 ATM/Cash Machine Comments NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Useful Respondents welcome the inclusion of cash machines. 3 Not essential Respondents state that they would not use this facility. 3 Respondents highlight the need to ensure ATMs are free to Cost 2 use. Respondents include the locations of other ATMs in the Location of other ATMs 2 town centre. Security Respondent suggests CCTV should cover the ATM. 1 Total 11

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 40

A TICKET AND INFORMATION OUTLET

5.3.9 A total of five responses were received regarding the intention to include a ticket and information outlet in the new interchange. The topics referenced within these public respondent comments are summarised in Table 5.10 below.

Æ Number of positive responses: 2 Æ Number of neutral responses: 3

Table 5-10 Ticket and Information Outlet Comments NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Good idea Respondents welcome this facility. 2 Respondent requests that opening hours are advertised Availability of information 1 and alternative sources of information are signposted. Ticket machines Respondent suggests installing a ticket machine. 1 Respondent states the current bus station has a ticket Facility already exists 1 outlet. Total 5

IMPROVED TAXI FACILITIES

5.3.10 A total of five responses were received regarding the intention to provide improved taxi facilities at the transport interchange. The topics referenced within these public respondent comments are summarised in Table 5.11.

Æ Number of positive responses: 2 Æ Number of neutral responses: 3

Table 5-11 Improved Taxi Facilities Comments NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Respondents question if or why a taxi rank was included in Clarification required 2 the interchange proposals. Respondent welcomes the proximity of taxis to bus Location 1 services. Respondent comments that this would increase business Economic impact 1 for taxis. Not essential Respondent said they would not use this facility. 1 Total 5

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 41

WI-FI/INTERNET ACCESS

5.3.11 A total of five responses were received regarding the intention to include Wi-Fi/internet access in the new transport interchange. The topics referenced within these public respondent comments are summarised in Table 5.12.

Æ Number of positive responses: 2 Æ Number of neutral responses: 3

Table 5-12 Wi-Fi/Internet Access Comments NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Respondents welcome the inclusion of Useful 2 Wi-Fi/internet access. Not essential Respondents state that this facility is unimportant. 3 Total 5

5.4 POSSIBILITY OF INCLUDING A RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL OR OTHER DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY

5.4.1 At the same time as the public consultation was underway for Stockport Interchange and the Town Centre Access Plan Phase 2 (November – December 2015), Transport for Greater Manchester and Stockport Council were exploring potential residential, commercial and other development opportunities which might be appropriate for construction with the new interchange. This was explained in the consultation leaflet and on the council and TfGM’s web sites.

5.4.2 To understand whether the local community and stakeholders support the potential of incorporating a development opportunity into the interchange scheme as a means of attracting more investment into Stockport and further supporting the regeneration of the borough, the consultation response form solicited views by asking:

“Please provide any comments you might have about the possibility of including a residential, commercial or other development opportunity as part of the interchange plans”

5.4.3 A total of 112 responses were received regarding the possible inclusion of a residential, commercial or other development opportunity in the interchange plans. Some responses commented on more than one aspect of potential development opportunities.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 42

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

5.4.4 A total of 43 responses were received regarding the potential of including a residential development as part of the new interchange. The topics referenced within these public respondent comments are summarised in Table 5.13.

Æ Number of positive responses: 24 Æ Number of neutral responses: 5 Æ Number of negative responses: 14 Table 5-13 Possible Residential Development Opportunity Comments NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Respondents would like to see residential development as General support 8 part of the new interchange. Affordable homes Respondents state a preference for affordable housing. 5 Respondents support new housing but suggest building Alternative location housing on the current bus station site and locating the 5 interchange elsewhere or building homes elsewhere. Against residential Respondents oppose residential development as part of 3 development the interchange plans. Respondents state that residential use is not compatible Not a suitable location 8 with the interchange due to noise levels, high cost of land. Respondents cite the increase in council tax revenue and Economic benefits 3 boost to the night time economy. Respondents would like to see modern apartments Modern apartments 2 included. Respondent suggests that homes should be targeted at Homes for economically active 2 working people who will contribute to the local economy. Respondent states that older people would benefit from Homes for older people 1 homes close to public transport. Respondent suggests that temporary housing for homeless Temporary accommodation 1 people could be provided. High quality Respondent states that the homes should be built to last. 1 Respondent states that Stockport has enough apartments No more apartments 1 and does not need any more. Respondent questions whether there is room for a Insufficient space residential development on the site of the transport 1 interchange. Respondent suggests building homes on top of the Build on top 1 interchange. Respondent thinks living in the town centre would be Health concerns 1 unhealthy due to proximity to the motorway. Total 43

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 43

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

5.4.5 Respondents were invited to comment on plans by TfGM and Stockport Council to explore a range of residential, commercial and other development opportunities as a way of attracting investment into Stockport Town Centre.

5.4.6 A total of 36 responses were received regarding the potential of including a ‘commercial development’ as part of the new interchange. The topics referenced within these public respondent comments are summarised in Table 5.14.

Æ Number of positive responses: 16 Æ Number of neutral responses: 12 Æ Number of negative responses: 8 Table 5-14 Possible Commercial Development Opportunity Comments NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Respondents welcome a commercial development as part General support 12 of the transport interchange. Respondents only support the inclusion of retail commonly Only retail/café required by used by passengers e.g. newsagents and/or cafe/take- 12 passengers away. Respondents state that additional office space or shops are Not needed 8 not required. Existing (empty) units should be utilised. Respondents suggest a riverside café on the Trans Riverside café 2 Pennine Trail side of the interchange. Respondents state shops and facilities will make the Feel safer 2 interchange busier and feel safer. Total 36

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 44

OTHER DEVELOPMENT

5.4.7 A total of 33 responses were received regarding the potential of other development opportunities, such as residential housing, leisure facilities and retail opportunities as part of the new interchange. The topics referenced within these public respondent comments are summarised in Table 5.15.

Æ Number of positive responses: 14 Æ Number of neutral responses: 10 Æ Number of negative responses: 9

Table 5-15 Comments on the Possibility of Including Other Development Opportunity/ies NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Respondents welcome development opportunities as part General support 9 of the transport interchange. Respondents advise against including too many uses Keep it simple which may conflict with transport making it less attractive to 6 potential passengers. Respondents request more information before determining More information required 3 if development opportunities would be beneficial. Respondents would not like industry to be included as part No industry of the interchange scheme and stated there are empty 3 premises in other parts of the town for this purpose. Respondents state that including additional development Vibrancy and security within the interchange scheme would make the area feel 2 vibrant and safer. Respondents state incorporating development Attract visitors 2 opportunities would attract more visitors to Stockport. Respondents state that development opportunities could Increase traffic 2 lead to an increase in traffic. Respondent states that the size of the bus station should Don’t restrict the interchange not be restricted in order to accommodate development 1 opportunities. Respondent states that any development opportunity High quality 1 should be built to last. Respondent states that development opportunities are Desirable, not essential 1 desirable but not essential. Respondent states that the development cannot compete Cannot compete the city centre 1 with Manchester City Centre or the Trafford Centre. Respondent is concerned that the development will Obscure view 1 obscure Grand Central residents’ views of nearby hills. Cost Respondent states that it is unnecessary to spend money 1 on extras such as development opportunities. Total 33

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 45

5.6 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE STOCKPORT INTERCHANGE DESIGN

5.6.1 Two hundred and three additional comments about Stockport Interchange proposals were submitted by respondents. The topics referenced within these public respondent comments are summarised in Table 5.16.

Æ Number of positive responses: 111 Æ Number of neutral responses: 7 Æ Number of negative responses: 14 Æ Number of responses suggesting the proposals are not enough: 71

Table 5-16 Additional comments on Stockport Interchange Design NUMBER OF COMMENT SUBJECT DETAILS COMMENTS Respondents welcome news of the development of a new General support 102 interchange for Stockport. Respondents state that the proposals to improve the route Pedestrian linkages between between the interchange and railway station for 56 rail station and interchange pedestrians are not enough to overcome the steep path. Respondents suggest either the bus station or railway Different location suggested station should be moved so that the two facilities are much 15 closer to each other. Respondents state the new drive in, reverse out proposal Drive in, reverse out for buses 8 for buses will be dangerous. Respondents welcome the new bridge across the River Support for new road bridge Mersey at Astley Street, with two respondents stating it will 5 make the interchange safer. Respondents suggest that a ground level drop off area Drop off area at Interchange 5 would be useful, especially for people with mobility issues. Support for limiting access for Respondents state that the proposals will improve 4 traffic into Mersey Square pedestrians’ experience. Respondents raise concerns about the level of disruption Disruption 4 when construction is underway. Respondents would prefer the interchange to be referred to Name 2 as a bus station. Loss of bus stops in Mersey Respondent does not support the removal of bus stops 1 Square from Mersey Square. Respondent states the new bridge will make congestion New road bridge will be worse worse if there is an accident on the M60 and a road 1 closure. Total 203

5.7 ONGOING INTEREST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF STOCKPORT INTERCHANGE

5.7.1 In order to keep members of the public informed of progress throughout the project, TfGM asked respondents if they would like to register to receive updates. Two hundred and fifty-five respondents registered for this.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 46

6 EXHIBITION FEEDBACK 6.1.1 This chapter provides a summary of the comments made and discussions held at the exhibitions with respect to the TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange proposals. The exhibition feedback has been brought to the attention of the design team as appropriate.

6.2 TOWN CENTRE ACCESS PLAN (PHASE 2)

6.2.1 The following comments were made/issues raised/discussions held with respect to TCAP Phase 2, as reported by the SMBC and TfGM representatives in attendance at the exhibitions:

Æ Details of, suggestions regarding and general support for various schemes; Æ Proposals’ cycle provision is generally insufficient and unconnected, and concern regarding shared use footways/cycleways; Æ Layout of Hall Street / Turncroft Lane / Banks Lane junction (Scheme 604); Æ Possible impacts of cycle route through Woodbank Park (Scheme 606); Æ Town centre parking availability; Æ Implementation timeline; Æ The likelihood of the Metrolink network extending to Stockport; and Æ The cost/funding of schemes.

6.2.2 Additionally, a number of comments were made/issues raised/discussions held regarding the TCAP Phase 1 and wider highway schemes in the area and were responded to as appropriate.

6.3 STOCKPORT INTERCHANGE

6.3.1 The following comments were made/issues raised/discussions held with respect to Stockport Interchange, as reported by the SMBC and TfGM representatives in attendance at the exhibitions:

Æ General support for access and operation proposals; Æ Pedestrian access routes between Stockport Interchange and Stockport Railway Station, and existing steps between Stockport Bus Station and the A6 Wellington Road South; Æ The potential for a funicular railway system (which was also supported in a press article); Æ Provision of passenger information displays; Æ Type of facilities that will be provided; Æ The routing of buses; Æ Disruption to bus services (and other town centre users) during construction; Æ The consideration of alternative locations for Stockport Interchange; Æ The likelihood of the Metrolink network extending to Stockport; and Æ The cost/funding of project.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 47

7 STAKEHOLDER CORRESPONDENCE 7.1.1 This chapter provides a summary of the stakeholder response to the consultation with respect to the TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange proposals. The stakeholder responses received have been brought to the attention of the design team as appropriate.

7.2 WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE

7.2.1 Details of written stakeholder correspondence are provided below. Copies of the responses are included at Appendix H.

STATUTORY CONSULTEES ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (EA)

7.2.2 A representative of the EA stated that while some discussions have already taken place with SMBC regarding various Flood Defence Consent requirements for works being carried out in, near or around the River Mersey, they would like the following Stockport Interchange associated comments to be considered as part of the consultation:

Æ “The design of the new proposed bridge across the Mersey should preferably be a clear spanning bridge”; Æ “Drainage works are the responsibility of Stockport drainage team as the Lead Local Flood Authority”; Æ “There is currently an area of vegetation alongside the river. It is not clear what is proposed in this area but we would be looking to protect this area from development to provide much needed habitat for wildlife using the river and its corridor”; Æ “The site is located in a sensitive environmental location being immediately above a Principal Aquifer (bedrock), Secondary Aquifer (superficial deposits) and adjacent to the River Mersey. We consider these to be controlled waters”; and Æ “Records available to the Environment Agency indicate that the site is has been subjected (prior to use as a bus station/terminus) to industrial land uses. This may have led to elevated concentrations of contamination in the ground which might pose a risk to controlled waters”.

7.2.3 Further statements are made with regards to the below because of the above comments:

Æ “Model procedures and good practice”; Æ “Waste on site”; Æ “Waste to be taken off site”; and Æ “Ground improvement and foundation design”.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT OPERATORS NORTHERN RAIL

7.2.4 A representative of the Northern Rail estates team indicated that they do not identify any issues for them within the TCAP Phase 2 or Stockport Interchange proposals, stating “the document talks about better links between the proposed Transport Interchange and the [railway] station but there doesn’t seem to be any direct impact on the station or rail services proposed”.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 48

STAGECOACH

7.2.5 Following discussions between SMBC, TfGM and Stagecoach representatives on 10th and 19th November 2015, a representative of Stagecoach confirmed “overall support for the Stockport Town Centre Access Plan and the range of measures contained within the proposal; in particular the provision of a redeveloped bus station with street level access from Wellington Road bridge and the proposals to ease congestion for general road traffic within the town centre”.

7.2.6 It was further stated, however, that the proposals “bring with them challenges for Stagecoach in terms of losing a much needed staff car parking facility and possibly also losing the Viaduct Street bus parking facility under the railway viaduct which is a matter of much greater concern”. Stagecoach request that the Viaduct Street bus parking area be retained.

7.2.7 This request was reaffirmed following a Stagecoach meeting with the Fire Service which determined a potentially alternative site as being unsuitable for Stagecoach use.

LOCAL BUSINESSES T.N. ROBINSON LTD.

7.2.8 In addition to discussions between SMBC, TfGM and T.N. Robinson Ltd. representatives on 11th November 2015, a representative of T.N. Robinson identified themselves through a hard copy response form, stating:

Æ Highway improvements:

“Should improve access to both customers and staff”;

“The drop off points should stop the public using our car park”;

“A better provision for lay down points for buses would be good instead of using Viaduct Street which makes it very difficult leaving our car park”; Æ Pedestrian improvements:

“Improved crossing points on Swaine Street and Daw Bank would be good, especially if you’re trying to get from Swaine Street to Exchange Street. A safer link from bus to rail station would be good”; Æ Public transport improvements:

“Any improvements are welcomed as a large number of staff use it to get to and from work”; and Æ Development opportunity as part of Stockport Interchange:

“It would be good to redevelop some currently empty old buildings in Stockport, however, you have to consider what incentive do people have to want to live in Stockport town centre. It’s not the most attractive town. It lacks bars, restaurants which will encourage people to stay/visit Stockport”.

7.2.9 The representative identified safety and security measures, modern design, changing and toilet facilities, covered waiting areas, ease of transfer to other transport and signposting to other locations as import Stockport Interchange design aspects.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 49

LEE-MAR ESTATES LTD.

7.2.10 Lee-Mar Estates Ltd. is the owner of Pear Mill Industrial Estate, Stockport Road West, Bredbury. A representative of Lee-Mar identified themselves through an online response form, stating:

Æ TCAP improvements:

“The plan number 606 on the eastern gateway section shows a cycle/bridleway/path that is on land in the ownership of Lee-Mar Estates Ltd. Lee-Mar Estates Ltd. do not give permission for anyone to put such a path around their land. Their site is in private ownership and is a busy industrial and commercial area. The land up to the top of the bank is needed for car parking and manoeuvring for the industrial estate. There is not enough room for a bridleway way or cycle route here”;

“Health and Safety of users of the path and users of the Pear Mill could be compromised with a path along the land owned by Lee-Mar Estates”; and Æ Stockport Interchange facilities:

“There is no facility or room for a Metrolink station. This appears to be short sighted”.

7.2.11 SMBC will continue to engage with Lee-Mar Estates in the development of the TCAP Phase 2 Scheme 606 design, in particular regarding the route of the cycle route.

SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS TRANS PENNINE TRAIL GROUP

7.2.12 A representative of the National TPT Office provided the following general comments with respect to the TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange proposals:

Æ “It is welcoming that Stockport are looking favourably at increasing cycle scheme usage and simplifying the Trans Pennine Trail network as part of these proposals”; Æ “One aspect that I would like to ask to be taken into consideration is the safety of children using the cycle schemes put forward. If segregated routes are to be used this would ensure the safety of children wishing to cycle with their parents into town. If shared use is the preferred option it would be very difficult for Stockport to then encourage the younger population to utilise the routes and ensure our next generation of cycle users continue to use this facility. Segregated routes would also provide a safe environment for disabled cyclists and our less experienced cyclists”.

7.2.13 The following comments were then subsequently provided following a TPT meeting with their Greater Manchester partners, and the meeting of 8th December with a TfGM representative:

Æ “The 4m wide riverside route is welcomed and is the preferred option for the Trans Pennine Trail”; Æ “It is understood that shared, inclusive, social cycling has been put forward as the preferred option. TPT would welcome further discussion on this aspect throughout the process”; Æ “Cycle stands throughout the new design of Mersey Square will attract visitors to the area”; Æ “Café should ideally have access from both sides, include cycle parking, and franchise needs to cater for visitors both on foot and bikes. Include in ‘cyclist welcome scheme’. Open hours should cater for all visitors, flask filling, packed lunches, etc.”; Æ “Understood there are other routes to the south of the TPT and Mersey Square - links into these routes are vital to ensure sustainable transport is available between the TPT, Stockport and other routes”;

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 50

Æ “If lifts are to be accommodated in the design, will these cater for disabled, cyclists, tandems, trikes, etc.”; Æ “Information / Interpretation boards should be present to include TPT information and also other routes”; Æ “TPT information should be present in cycle hub and interchange”; Æ “TPT should be included on new TfGM maps - details supplied to TfGM”; and Æ “Signing to / from station and cycle hub to the TPT and other routes”.

GREATER MANCHESTER CYCLING CAMPAIGN

7.2.14 The Greater Manchester Cycling Campaign (GMCC) is “a voluntary group working to make cycling in Greater Manchester quicker, safer, easier and more enjoyable”.

7.2.15 A representative of GMCC stated that they are unable to support the TCAP Phase 2 proposals because “In summary, the schemes do not appear to contain enough coherently linked items of sufficient quality to achieve the plan’s stated aims: ‘to improve access within Stockport town centre by all methods of travel’, ‘tackle congestion’ and ‘remove barriers to movement’”.

7.2.16 It was further stated that “the proposals seem unlikely to help Greater Manchester achieve its aims to reduce carbon emissions and pollution and improve public health; while providing minimal benefit for people who cycle, or - more importantly - people who would like to start cycling”.

7.2.17 GMCC provided a recap of their response to the TCAP Phase 1 proposals, but stated “whilst there are some welcome minor improvements, our earlier comments appear to have had minimal impact”.

7.2.18 In summary, the GMCC’s primary concerns associated with the TCAP Phase 2 proposals are identified as:

Æ “The continued reliance upon shared-use footways”; and Æ “The proposals do not provide clear, continuous, direct and safe cycle routes into Stockport centre”.

7.2.19 Specific comments associated with these concerns have been provided on TCAP Schemes 303, 402, 502, 703, 706, 801, 902, 903, 906 and 907, and have been brought to the attention of the design team for consideration.

LOVE YOUR BIKE

7.2.20 Love Your Bike “aim to promote cycling and to help make it an attractive, accessible and fun way to get around”.

7.2.21 A representative of Love Your Bike stated that “There are some aspects of the TCAP [Phase 2] proposals that are to be welcomed – such as the connecting routes through local parks and the improvements to the TPT”.

7.2.22 However, Love Your Bike also outline concerns with the following key elements of the TCAP Phase 2 proposals noting key design criteria, TfGM and national transport guidance and the Equality Act legislation:

Æ “the use of shared-use pavements and Toucan crossings”; and Æ “the impact of the TCAP [Phase 2] proposals on Air Quality”.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 51

7.2.23 Specific comments associated with these concerns have been provided to the design team for consideration.

7.2.24 “Love Your Bike urges Stockport Council to reconsider the TCAP2 proposals to ensure that the proposed routes provide separate facilities for pedestrians and people cycling. All the designs are ‘cycle proofed’ to enable and encourage the growth of cycling trips for all ages and abilities”.

STOCKPORT CYCLE USER GROUP

7.2.25 SMBC representatives met with the Stockport Cycle User Group (CUG) on 18th and 26th November to discuss and invite comments on TCAP Phase 2 Scheme 606 and the remainder of TCAP Phase 2 / Stockport Interchange, where 11 and 7 CUG representatives signed in respectively.

7.2.26 Attendees were encouraged to provide their feedback by making comments on the plans with ‘post-it’ notes. A total of 103 TCAP Scheme / Stockport Interchange specific comments were received, and a summary of the comments received is provided below.

Æ Cycle route / facility continuity is essential; Æ Junction improvements are required at various locations to increase cyclists’ priority, with the phasing of signals altered as appropriate; Æ Segregation is preferable at various locations (as opposed to shared pedestrian/cycle use), and on-road is often preferred in certain situations; Æ Access through Mersey Square needs to be maintained for cyclists; Æ Cycle parking is required at certain locations; and Æ Lighting, surfacing and de-cluttering improvements are required at certain locations.

7.2.27 A log of all of the comments received has been provided to the design team for consideration, and is included at Appendix H.

7.2.28 A representative of the CUG also provided plans identifying a potential cycle route between Stockport Exchange and Thomson Street, information about Ebbw Vale (Wales) inclined lift and a potential inclined lift location between Exchange Street and Station Road, as included at Appendix H.

7.2.29 Furthermore, representatives of the CUG subsequently provided comments on:

Æ TCAP Schemes 108, 109, 502, 601, 604, 606, 609, 702, 703, 801, 901 and 906; and Æ the TPT proposals associated with the Stockport Interchange project as they contain “a number of elements which would lead to conflict or illegal cycling and misses out at least one link which would help Stockport Council encourage cycling”. An annotated plan was also provided, and is included at Appendix H alongside the comments.

STOCKPORT EAST AREA BRIDLEWAYS ASSOCIATION

7.2.30 A representative of Stockport East Area Bridleways Association identified themselves through a hard copy response form, stating:

Æ Highway improvements:

“Very pleased with the proposed Pegasus crossing / traffic lights at Stockport Road / Welkin Road and new bridleway route to Vernon Rd (TCAP Scheme 606), this should remove most horses off Stockport Rd West and a lot of cyclists”;

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 52

Æ Pedestrian improvements:

“The Broadway / Vernon Rd Bredbury (TCAP Scheme 606): Not sure why kissing gates are needed? Definatley [sic] DO NOT NEED or want STEPS on the present route, or a horse style, both of these are unnecessary and prevent access to people with mobility problems”; Æ Cycling improvement:

“The plans show a new route from Bredbury Hall to Welkin Road (Scheme 606), this is great but please do not waste money on a dividing fence (it didn't work on the TPT or the Middlewood Way). HOWEVER we would like bridleway access through Woodbank Park, the fencing could be used alongside that routes to horse-riders straying from the track, and it would not only give greater access to off road routes for local horse-riders but also to those in mobility scooters and parents with prams”;

“We would like the Goyt Hall Farm to Clapgate route to be bridleway and include horses”; Æ Environmental impacts:

“We are opposed to any sealed surfaces i.e. Bitmac/Tarmac/Concrete as they damage the environment and cause flooding problems as well as winter ice problems making routes unusable”; Æ Other TCAP proposal comments:

“We do have concerns regarding surfacing of bridleways and strongly recommend using a grit stone surface with good drainage”;

“We appreciate that a lot of these improvements are aimed at cyclists HOWEVER some cyclists go far too fast and we recommend speed humps/ dips on hills with signage for cyclists to slow / give way to other users”;

Please use Sec 59 notices on bridleways instead of motorbike inhibitors so that the legitimate users are not denied access”; and Æ Stockport Interchange facilities:

“Please be aware of those with disabilities/ mobility problems”.

OTHER MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

7.2.31 Following the exhibition of 27th November 2015 SMBC sent a representative of the Ministry of Defence a copy of the TCAP Phase 1 proposals on Greek Street (in proximity to the Army Reserve Centre), as requested. No response has subsequently been received.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

7.2.32 Following the exhibition of 27th November 2015 SMBC sent a representative of the National Health Service information regarding access arrangements to their property on Astley Street during the Stockport Interchange associated works, in addition to parking arrangements as requested. No response has subsequently been received.

7.3 MEETINGS

7.3.1 Details of stakeholders’ comments recorded at meetings are provided below in the order in which the meeting took place.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 53

COMMENTS RECEIVED STOCKPORT TOWN CENTRE – M60 GATEWAY TASK FORCE

7.3.2 Following a presentation of the TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange proposals by an SMBC representative on 9th November 2015, the below comments were made/issues raised with respect to TCAP, as included in the minutes of the meeting:

Æ Members acknowledged that more and more schemes are starting to come forward; Æ Members welcomed the commitment to improving road safety for all road users; and Æ Members also acknowledged the huge amount of officer time and hard work that these schemes represent.

7.3.3 It was noted by the SMBC representative who presented at this meeting that there was general support for the TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange proposals.

WERNETH AREA COMMITTEE

7.3.4 Following a presentation of the TCAP Phase 2 proposals and provision of the report included at Appendix F on 9th November 2015, the below comments were made/issues raised/discussions held, as included in the minutes of the meeting:

Æ It was suggested that the recent footpath and cycle route works on Newbridge Lane had impeded traffic flow. In response it was stated that when complete, experience from elsewhere would indicate that the new cycle way would be well used and that the increase in width of the footways had not been achieved at the cost of the loss of carriageway width; Æ It was stated that the Newbridge Lane route formed part of the works associated with the Cycle City Ambition Grant and would eventually join up to other routes from Bredbury; and Æ There were plans to widen the bridge on St Mary’s Way over the River Mersey to improve traffic flow and to introduce a right turn filer lane onto St Marys Way from Newbridge Lane for traffic travelling from Stockport Town Centre to ease congestion. BUS OPERATORS

7.3.5 Following the Bus Operators’ Liaison Group (OLG) meeting of 10th November 2015 where TfGM representatives discussed the TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange proposals with bus operator representatives, it was noted that the bus operators are generally very supportive of the proposals and most thought they had been kept updated of the proposals prior to the consultation.

7.3.6 The following TCAP Phase 2 specific comment was raised by Stagecoach:

Æ With respect to the King Street West proposals (Scheme 303), concern of considerable congestion when emptying/filling the depot of/with buses in the AM/PM.

7.3.7 The following Stockport Interchange specific comments were raised by Stagecoach:

Æ Interest in the land adjacent to Weir Mill (Chestergate) for possible Stagecoach associated car parking; and Æ Concern that the loss of the car and bus parking adjacent / beneath the viaduct (off Chestergate) would prejudice bus operation from the proposed Interchange if stabled elsewhere.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 54

7.3.8 The above comments were discussed in detail between SMBC, TfGM and Stagecoach representatives on 19th November 2015 and an agreed action plan developed to address / mitigate the issues raised.

7.3.9 Additionally, a union representative at Stockport enquired at the exhibition of 19th November 2015 as to why unions have not been engaged with respect to the proposals, and what will happen to the staff facilities.

DISABILITY STOCKPORT

7.3.10 The following comments were raised by an SMBC representative with respect to the TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange proposals after the Disability Transport Access Forum of 11th November 2015:

Æ Street clutter is causing a pinch point for pedestrians at the junction of Corporation Street and Great Portwood Street (TCAP Scheme 402); and Æ Consideration needs to be given to provision of a short-stay drop-off facility at the Interchange. T.N. ROBINSON LTD.

7.3.11 SMBC, TfGM and T.N. Robinson Ltd. representatives met on 11th November 2015 to discuss the TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange proposals and consultation. SMBC and TfGM answered queries concerning local access/egress and construction programming/phasing, and noted that T.N. Robinson are generally supportive of the proposals.

7.3.12 It was noted that T.N. Robinson appreciated there will need to be an agreement regarding phased temporary traffic management arrangements, and recognised that until Metrolink is implemented their position will be much improved in terms of access.

7.3.13 With respect to Metrolink, it was explained by SMBC and TfGM that much work is required before possible alignments etc. can be confirmed and progress made on the business case, and as such possible funding made available. However, the nominal east-west and north-south Metrolink alignments were outlined.

7.3.14 T.N. Robinson suggested that overnight bus parking and daytime laying-over in Viaduct Street takes place illegally but the police will not take action against the operators, whereas their own staff/customers would get fixed penalty notices served on them.

TFGM DISABILITY DESIGN REFERENCE GROUP

7.3.15 Following a summary of the TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange proposals by a TfGM representative on 12th November 2015, the below comments were made/issues raised/discussions held, as included in the minutes of the meeting:

Æ The likelihood of the Metrolink network extending to Stockport; Æ The facilities that will be included at the Interchange (including baby changing, passenger information, coaches); Æ The management of the Interchange construction phase with respect to bus stop placement; and Æ The consideration of previous comments made with respect to Wythenshawe Interchange (including lighting, signage and passenger information).

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 55

CENTRAL STOCKPORT AREA COMMITTEE

7.3.16 Following a presentation of the TCAP Phase 2 proposals and provision of the report included at Appendix F on 12th November 2015, the below comments were made/issues raised/discussions held, as included in the minutes of the meeting:

Æ Whether there were any plans to resurface Welkin Road, Bredbury particularly if it was to be used as a cycleway (Scheme 606); Æ Whether it was anticipated that any archaeological remains would be discovered as had been case on the Redrock site (TCAP Phase 1); Æ Whether the Friends of Woodbank Park had been consulted on the new bridge with viewing galleries across the River Goyt to link Woodbank Park with access to Woodley and the Town Centre, and the shared-use (pedestrian/cycle) route from the south side of the new bridge to the existing cycle track in Woodbank Park (Scheme 606); and Æ A lot of facilities in the package were designed for pedestrians and cyclists. There was scope in Stockport to improve facilities for cyclists as part of the Cycle City Ambition Grant Programme and the aim was that the cycle routes would eventually join up.

7.3.17 The following comments were made/issues raised/discussions held with respect to the Stockport Interchange proposals as included in the minutes of the meeting:

Æ Whether there was any possibility of a covered walkway on the path from Daw Bank to the railway station; Æ Details of the materials of the proposed lift to the A6 from Wood Street and whether there would be CCTV in the area; Æ The initial planning application being for the Stockport Interchange only (not potential residential, commercial and other development opportunities which might be appropriate); and Æ The protection of a route for Metrolink and the possible location of stops. STOCKPORT CYCLE USER GROUP

7.3.18 In addition to the CUG ‘post-it’ comments, the following were noted by SMBC at the meetings on 18th and 26th November:

TCAP Phase 2 Æ Request for a 20mph speed limit on the A6 through Stockport town centre. Stockport Interchange Æ TPT should be segregated; Æ Segregated cycle lane should be provided on Astley Street bridge; and Æ Cycle Route 558 should be linked to the TPT adjacent to the bus depot. SOUTH MANCHESTER FINANCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL NETWORK

7.3.19 It was noted by the SMBC representative who presented at this meeting on 19th November 2015 that there was general support for the TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange proposals.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 56

STOCKPORT LOCAL ACCESS FORUM

7.3.20 It was noted by SMBC that following a presentation at this meeting on 23rd November 2015 there was general support for the TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange proposals.

GREATER MANCHESTER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

7.3.21 It was noted by the SMBC representative who presented at this meeting on 24th November 2015 that there was general support for the TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange proposals.

STOCKPORT TOWN CENTRE BUSINESS AND RETAIL FORUM

7.3.22 SMBC and TfGM representatives answered questions at the Stockport Town Centre Business and Retail Forum of 25th November 2015 regarding the lack of a 3D flythrough for the whole of TCAP which would show the improvements, and the extent of the proposals for St Mary’s Way (TCAP Phase 1 100 Series).

7.3.23 The SMBC and TfGM representatives advised of the materials that will be available at the exhibitions (including detailed plans).

FRIENDS OF WOODBANK, VERNON AND POISE (FWVP)

7.3.24 The following comments were noted by SMBC at the exhibition of 21st November 2015 following a discussion with a FWVP representative:

Æ Concern about speeding cyclists, drainage, heritage, social and security (including access control) issues; and Æ Alternative pedestrian / cycle route (and as such proposed bridge location) would be preferred.

7.3.25 On 30th November 2015 SMBC representatives met with FWVP to discuss their concerns in further detail, and a follow-up meeting was subsequently arranged to discuss the above on-site on 10th December 2015.

7.3.26 Discussions regarding the below have subsequently been undertaken between SMBC and an FWVP representative:

Æ Possible cycle-speed calming measures; Æ Existing drainage / vegetation issues, and the upkeep / maintenance (including litter) associated with the proposed scheme; Æ Potential security issues associated with the proposals; Æ FWCP concerns with the proposed route, and the possibility of an alternative route (and proposed bridge location); Æ The need for a Heritage Study; and Æ The park information boards.

7.3.27 SMBC will continue to engage with FWVP in the development of the TCAP Phase 2 Scheme 606 design, in particular regarding the route of the cycle route.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 57

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY FORUM

7.3.28 A TfGM representative answered questions at the Public Rights of Way Forum of 3rd December 2015 regarding:

Æ When Metrolink is arriving in Stockport; Æ The signing of the existing and proposed access between Stockport Interchange and the railway station, in addition to other locations (TCAP); Æ Bus access to the Interchange; and Æ The programme of works for the Interchange.

7.3.29 It was noted that the Forum agreed reducing the level difference by using lifts and improving the A6 route was appropriate.

TRANS PENNINE TRAIL GROUP

7.3.30 On 8th December 2015, a TfGM representative updated the group on the consultation exercise, design progress and overall programme enabling subsequent email comments.

7.3.31 The minutes of the meeting include the following “TPT Specific” items associated with the proposals:

Æ “Simplifying the route and encouraging visitors into Stockport and utilise other forms of public transport. Improving links to rails, installing lifts and signage”; and Æ “Conscious that we need to maintain an open route for pedestrians and cyclists during works if safe to do so”.

7.3.32 The Group were made aware that SMBC and TfGM are exploring ways of ensuring that the TPT remained connected to the rest of the cycle network by appropriate signage and route modifications.

7.3.33 The following topics were also discussed, as recorded by the TfGM representative in attendance:

Æ The segregation of pedestrians and cyclists; Æ Temporary TPT arrangements (during construction); Æ TPT linkage at either end of the Interchange; Æ A café facility within the Interchange; Æ The availability of TPT information within the Interchange; Æ The riverside location and setting between the A6 and viaduct; and Æ TPT stamp locations (currently the Hat Works but the Stockport Interchange may be more appropriate). WALTHEW HOUSE (STOCKPORT INSTITUTE FOR THE BLIND THE DEAF AND THE DUMB)

7.3.34 SMBC representatives discussed with Walthew House representatives on 16th December 2015 the TCAP (Phases 1 and 2) and Stockport Interchange proposals and consultation.

7.3.35 The following TCAP Phase 2 specific comments were raised by Walthew House:

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 58

Æ The general principles of design that Walthew House support are to have no/limited street clutter, a simple layout and delineating/differentiating paving/surfacing with no vast open spaces; Æ Tactile paving should be provided at all crossings/junctions (in line with guidance); Æ Kerbs and controlled crossings essential at any location where there is the potential for pedestrian/vehicle conflict; and Æ Shared-use areas are difficult for the Blind the Deaf and the Dumb, so supplementary signage could be used to remind cyclists of other users and cyclists should always have a bell.

7.3.36 A particularly difficult local shared-use (segregated) example presented by Walthew House was discussed with photographs showing street clutter, unfavourable tactile paving and pedestrians being made to walk between the carriageway and cyclists.

7.3.37 SMBC have invited Walthew House (and their partners) to deliver a session to the SMBC design team to focus on particular issues faced by the Blind the Deaf and the Dumb for consideration in further design work.

7.3.38 The following topics were discussed with respect to the Stockport Interchange proposals:

Æ Access arrangements; and Æ The likelihood of the Metrolink network extending to Stockport. STOCKPORT ECONOMIC ALLIANCE

7.3.39 It was noted by SMBC that following a presentation at this meeting on 21st December 2015 there was general support for the TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange proposals.

SHOPMOBILITY

7.3.40 At a meeting with an SMBC representative on 12th January 2016, NFSUK suggested Stockport Interchange to be an important meeting and collection point for Shopmobility customers.

7.3.41 They would ideally have scooter storage, charging facilities and a desk.

OTHER MEETINGS

7.3.42 The following meetings were attended by an SMBC / TfGM representative but no comments were received regarding the TCAP or Stockport Interchange proposals:

Æ Stockport TMU (5th November 2015); and Æ Heatons and Reddish Area Committee (9th November 2015, the report included at Appendix F was provided).

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016 59

8 CONCLUSION 8.1.1 This report has demonstrated that a comprehensive and inclusive consultation has been undertaken on the TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange schemes. The consultation was publicised by a range of methods, in particular a leaflet drop to 28,000 properties, to raise awareness of the schemes among those who may be affected by or interested in the proposals. A number of meetings with stakeholders were also held prior to and during the consultation in order to gain a detailed understanding of their views.

8.1.2 The consultation has been successful in capturing feedback via a range of methods, including a total of 426 completed response forms. Feedback has been received from respondents from across Stockport town centre and surrounding areas.

8.1.3 A range of comments on the TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange schemes were received during the consultation; some in support, some against and some making further suggestions based on the proposals.

8.1.4 Specific comments were received regarding the TCAP Phase 2 scheme proposals relating to highway and pedestrian / cyclist improvements, road safety and congestion amongst other subjects. The comments received are summarised within this report,

8.1.5 The comments regarding Stockport Interchange were largely supportive of the plans. Respondents’ priorities were enhanced security measures, the covered seating area and ease of transfer to other modes of transport. The proposal to include a lift from the interchange to the A6 was welcomed but many people also requested that more is done to improve the existing route between the railway station and interchange.

8.1.6 The possibility of including residential, commercial or other development opportunities as part of the interchange was generally received well, although some respondents questioned whether the site was suitable for housing, while others stated a preference for only certain types of commercial outlets, e.g. newsagents and cafes. If development opportunities are to be pursued more information will be provided to those who requested it during this exercise, as part of a limited secondary consultation.

8.1.7 The consultation response received for the TCAP Phase 2 and Stockport Interchange will be considered by the respective project teams in the development of the scheme designs and through the statutory approvals process.

Stockport Town Centre Transport WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Stockport MBC Project No 70005497 March 2016