We Asked, You Said, We Did

Find out about the issues we have recently consulted on and their outcomes.

We asked

Stockport Council is consulting on improving journeys on the A6 corridor from the Manchester Boundary to Stockport Town Centre.

Working in partnership with Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM), we want to make the roads safer, reduce bus journey times, improve access to bus stops, provide better crossings, and develop cycle routes parallel and across the A6 to make it easier to walk, wheel and cycle.

You said

  • Proposals could increase pollution and congerstion
  • May descrease the safety of cyclists
  • Against Drop Crossings and would prefer Dutch Kerbs
  • Against the proposed One-Way on Buckingham Road
  • Incorporate more green spaces
  • Warwick Road bridge may become too narrow
  • Speed of vehicles needs to be reduced / controlled
  • Not ambitious enough
  • Not enough cyclists to justify the improvements
  • Against limiting access to Ellesmere Road North
  • Signalised crossings need shorter waiting times for pedestrians
  • Not enough improvements for cyclists
  • Implementation of cyclops junctions
  • Against the loss of trees
  • Roads need to be made safer for cyclists
  • Halesden Road & Ash Grove footway should be converted into a shared footway / cycleway
  • Against narrowing of Whitehill Street at the junction of Manchester Road as this will make it difficult for HGVs turning at the junction towards the industrial estate
  • Concerned with the potential loss of parking as this may reduce footfall for businesses, impacting the viability of traders particularly around Heaton Chapel village centre
  • One-Way systems are too confusing to be user-friendly
  • Against road closures and concerns with additional traffic on Broadstone Hall Road North
  • The proposed route along Manchester Road is too complicated and does not have enough space for segregated cycling facilities
  • Eastern cycle route may be too indirect
  • Western cycle route is too indirect
  • Cyclists should have priority on the roundabout
  • Warwick Road bridge should be made One-Way to allow for footway improvements
  • Concerned for the safety of cyclists
  • Speeding traffic needs to be controlled / slowed
  • Priority at Parsonage Road junction with Heaton Road should be reverted to an older layout
  • The bus stop relocation on Heaton Road junction with Ashburn road can cause a few blind spots for drivers driving on Parsonage Road and vice versa south to Heaton Road junction with Parsonage Road
  • Signage warning of cyclists is required on bridges
  •  Against signalised junction on Heaton Road / Ashburn road / Alexandra Road
  • Pavement parking needs to be stopped
  • Proposals are prioritising cyclists over motorists
  • Requested 20mph be implemented on Mauldeth Road
  • Requested a 24hr bus lane
  • Against shared pedestrian / cyclist spaces
  • Bus lanes should not be extended
  • A6 should be made more pedestrian / cyclist friendly
  • Cyclists may not use the proposed cycle routes
  • All roads leading off the A6 should be One-Way
  • Against the loss of potential parking
  •  Glenfield Road Traffic signals are unnecessary
  • Against cyclists being encouraged to use Leegate Road
  • Requested maintenance on Leegate Road
  • Agaisnt raised junction tables
  • Opening up the gateway between the adopted and unadopted parts of Leegate Road could allow access for motorcyclists
  • Western cycle route should go through Heaton Moor Golf Course
  • Against a cycle route along St James Road
  • The contra-flow cycle lane needs physical segregation
  • Against changing the priority of traffic on Broomfield Road / Warwick Road
  • Concerned about the safety of the public in shared spaces
  • Against the crossing on Heaton Moor Road / Peel Moat Road / Broomfield Road
  • Requested no access to motor traffic on Warwick Road
  • No need for a cycle route down Heaton Road as no-one cycles that way
  • Requested double yellow lines near the greenspace at Heaton Road / Parsonage Road junction
  • Requested segregated cycle lanes running down the A6

We did

You Said (Reworded)

We Did

You said these proposals could Increase pollution and congestion.

We have ensured that these proposals aim to encourage more walking, cycling and use of public transport to help reduce car use, to reduce congestion and to lower pollution. The scheme includes junction improvements to benefit all road users. Traffic modelling and analysis have been undertaken at various locations and the results indicate the proposed junction improvements operate within capacity although some operational delays may increase due to the need for vehicles to wait during pedestrian stages where these are not currently present. It is not anticipated that the proposals will increase congestion and they should not have any significant impact on traffic flows.

You said these proposals may decrease the safety of cyclists.

We have increased the safety of cyclists as, the existing cycle lanes on the A6 are signed as being Monday to Friday 7-10 am and 4-7 pm only and do not comply with guidance in LTN 1/20. Where we have removed them, we have replaced them with bus lanes which cyclists can use and which are designed to a width that will require the bus to leave the bus lane to overtake a cyclist.

 

We have ensured that these proposals include significant investment in the improvement of quiet on-carriageway cycle routes in residential areas and the installation of a number of controlled crossings along busier routes.

You said you are against Vehicle Drop Crossings and would prefer Dutch Kerbs.

We will take into account the preference for Dutch style kerbs while considering acceptable crossfall on footways, existing conditions and the need to maintain access to premises. Ultimately, the layout and kerb types for vehicle drop-crossing arrangements will be determined as part of the detail design.

You said you’re against the proposed one-way on Buckingham Road.

We have omitted Buckingham Rd One-Way from the scheme.

You said that proposals should incorporate more green spaces.

We have, where space allows, provided some additional green spaces. In addition, tree planting has been provided in several other locations. There are also a number of new benches located throughout the scheme extents. Unfortunately, much of the proposed cycle routes are along existing highways where space is limited.

You said the Warwick Road bridge may become too narrow.

We have checked the proposals for vehicle manoeuvrability (vehicle tracking) which are also subject to a Road Safety Audit to check that there is adequate space for vehicle movements in both directions. Further, weight restrictions will restrict the types of vehicles permitted to use the bridge.

You said the speed of vehicles needs to be reduced/controlled.

We are proposing to implement several different measures to help reduce the speed of vehicles, these include traffic calming such as speed humps, raised junction tables and the reduction of corner kerb radii. 20mph speed limits have also been proposed for many residential streets to reduce the speed of vehicles and improve safety for vulnerable road users. These speed limits are proposed to complement the existing and other approved 20mph speed limits within the scheme extents.

You said the proposals are not ambitious enough.

We have, within the available budget and timescale for delivery, made the proposals as ambitious as possible. It will provide new bus lanes, improved junctions, enhanced crossings and upgraded bus stops along the A6 corridor. This is in addition to eastern and western cycle routes connecting the Heatons and Reddish areas to the Town Centre, providing improved pedestrian facilities and off-carriageway and quiet on-carriageway cycling provision.

You said there are not enough cyclists to justify improvements.

We have proposed cycle routes that would use the existing network along with a combination of off-road paths and quiet roads which are already linked to the wider cycle network. The aim is to help encourage people to become more active and make fewer car journeys to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution and to help tackle climate change. Part of this is to make journeys on foot or by bike much easier and more attractive for residents. Consequently, an increased number of cyclists is anticipated.

You said you are against limiting access to Ellesmere Road North.

There are no proposals to limit access to Ellesmere Road North.

You said that signalised crossings need shorter waiting times for pedestrians.

We will take this preference into account although call times for crossings will be considered by the UTC during the detailed design stages.

You said there are not enough improvements for cyclists.

We have proposed two cycling routes to the east and west of the A6 connecting the Heatons and Reddish areas to the Town Centre. There are also improved cycling facilities at a number of junctions on the A6 corridor, providing connections to key locations to the east and west. These proposals include segregated cycleways, shared use facilities, quiet on-carriageway cycle routes and a variety of controlled crossings for cyclists.

You requested for the implementation of cyclops junctions.

We did an in-depth analysis of the possible implementation of Cyclops junctions. Unfortunately, cyclops junctions cannot currently be delivered as part of the Bus Radial (A6 Corridor – Improving Journeys) scheme because either 3rd party land would be required at the junctions, or the junctions would need to be re-designed with considerably reduced capacity.  Unfortunately, the legal and land requirements to provide segregated cycle lanes and ‘CYCLOPS’ type junctions on the A6 would take the project well beyond the March 2027 deadline to build it and would cost a lot more than the money allocated for it.

You said you are against the loss of trees.

We have minimised the loss of trees as much as possible, although the proposals do require some trees to be removed.

The trees along the PROW 162S Bowerfold Lane – Higher Bury Street have been surveyed and assessed and the report indicates that 9 trees can be removed due to poor condition, and another to enable path construction. The trees to be removed are from an overgrown hedge that has not been maintained and the trees are showing signs of decay with potential structural problems. The trees to be removed will be replaced with more suitable species along with a mature native hedge. The 9 trees to be removed from Leegate Road are self-seeded trees which have established themselves on a mound which needs to be removed to enable the construction of a cycle path.  Replacement tree planting will be provided.

You said roads need to be made safer for cyclists.

We have proposed two cycling routes as alternative options to the A6. These routes include traffic calming measures, 20mph speed limits, controlled crossings, shared use facilities and segregated cycleways, which will increase the safety of vulnerable road users.

You said Halesden Road & Ash Grove footway should not be converted to a shared footway/cycleway.

To provide onward connections from the proposed Toucan crossing at Lambs Fold (which provides a link between the eastern cycle route and the A6) it is required that a shared space footway/cycleway on either side be implemented. This will require a short length of footway / cycleway between the junction of Manchester Road / Halesden Rd and the crossing but for the most part, the footway on Halesden Rd will be for pedestrian use only.  We have also omitted the proposed shared space footway/cycleway between Orthes Grove and Ash Grove from the scheme.  On Ash Grove, a new cycleway will be built on what is currently a verge, not a footway.

You said you’re against narrowing of Whitehill Street West at the junction with Manchester Road as this will make it difficult for HGVs turning at the junction heading towards the industrial estate.

We have checked the proposals for vehicle manoeuvrability (vehicle tracking). to confirm that there is adequate space for all vehicle movements at the junction.

You said you’re concerned with the potential loss of parking as this may reduce footfall for local businesses, impacting the viability of traders, particularly around the area of Heaton Chapel village centre.

We have consulted with Local businesses and parking surveys have been undertaken. Comments and results have informed the design. At the Manchester Road / A6 junction a parking bay has had to be removed to provide an additional pedestrian crossing with provision of a loading bay to facilitate servicing of the shops. 

You said you believe that one-way systems are too confusing to be user-friendly.

We have omitted all one-way proposals.

You said you’re against road closures and concerns with additional traffic on Broadstone Hall Road North.

We have omitted the road closure on Carnforth Road from the scheme.

You said the proposed route along Manchester Road is too complicated and does not have enough space for segregated cycling facilities.

This scheme will provide a valuable off-carriageway cycle link connecting quiet streets in Heaton Chapel with those in South Reddish with onward connection via quiet streets to the Town Centre.  We will implement wayfinding signage to prevent confusion to those using the cycle route.

We have used an accurate topographic survey when designing the cycle routes, ensuring there is adequate space for the proposals.

 

You said that the Eastern cycle route may be too indirect.

We have proposed the parallel cycle routes to offer alternative routes between residential areas of the Heatons and the Town Centre. They provide a north-south link and connections to local schools, residential areas, and other local amenities. From the Northern end of the Eastern cycle route at Nelstrop Rd to the Southern end at Tiviot Dale, the route distance is approx. 3.3km.  Between these two locations the distance is similar via the A6. 

You said the western cycle route is too indirect.

We have proposed the parallel cycle routes to offer alternative routes between residential areas of the Heatons and the Town Centre. They provide a north-south link and connections to local schools, residential areas, and other local amenities. From the Northern end of the route at the junction of Buckingham Road / Peel Moat Road the distance to Mersey Square is similar (2.9km) via the Western cycle route or via the A6.

You said cyclists should have priority on the roundabout.

We have revised the drawings to show both Tiger crossings and Sparrow crossings. Cyclists and pedestrians have priority on Tiger crossings. At Sparrow crossings, the cyclist detection equipment can be used to detect and change signals for approaching cyclists.

You said Warwick Road bridge should be made one way to allow for footway improvements.

We have checked the proposals for vehicle manoeuvrability (vehicle tracking) which are also subject to a Road Safety Audit to check that there is adequate space for vehicle movements in both directions. Further, weight restrictions will restrict the types of vehicles permitted to use the bridge.

You said you are concerned for the safety of cyclists.

The proposals include extensive measures to make cycling safer including lower speed limits on residential streets, traffic calming, off carriageway cycle facilities and a number of new crossings. We will also subject the proposals to a road safety audit.

You said speeding traffic needs to be controlled / slowed.

We have proposed several different measures to help reduce the speed of vehicles. These include traffic calming such as speed humps, raised junction tables and the reduction of corner kerb radii. 20mph speed limits have also been proposed for many residential streets to reduce the speed of vehicles and improve safety for vulnerable road users. These speed limits are proposed to complement the existing and other approved 20mph speed limits within the scheme extents.

You said priority at the Parsonage Road junction with Heaton Road should be reverted to older layout.

We have revised the scheme to include a raised junction table to help reduce the speed of vehicles on the approach to the junction and make the need for vehicles exiting Parsonage Road to give way clearer.

You said the bus stop relocation at Heaton Road junction with Ashburn Road can cause blind spots for drivers driving on Parsonage Road and vice versa south to Heaton Road junction with Parsonage Road.

We have revised the scheme, and the bus stop will now be retained in its existing location.

You said signage warning of cyclists is required on Bridges.

We will implement a signage strategy as the design is developed in more detail.

You said you’re against signalised junction on Heaton Road / Ashburn Road / Alexandra Road.

We have revised the scheme, and the proposed signal junction has been omitted and replaced with a priority junction, including a raised table and uncontrolled pedestrian dropped crossings.

You said pavement parking needs to be stopped.

We have proposed bollards at some specific key locations throughout the scheme extents, to prevent pavement parking. Unfortunately, if there are no physical measures preventing pavement parking and there are no parking restrictions in place (i.e. a double or single yellow line); then Stockport Council does not have the powers to enforce, irrespective of whether the vehicle is parked on or off the pavement. In this case, if the vehicles are considered to be parked in a dangerous position and causing safety issues for other road users this should be reported to the Police. This is then at the discretion of the Police to decide whether a vehicle is deemed to be parked in a dangerous position and causing an obstruction.

You said that proposals are seemingly prioritising cyclists over motorists.

Our objective for this scheme is to encourage more walking, cycling and use of public transport to help reduce car use, to reduce congestion and to lower pollution. In some instances, this will involve reallocating road space currently used by motor vehicles to cyclists.  Where this happens account will be taken of the needs of motor traffic, for example, to ensure that HGV’s can still safely complete manoeuvres at junctions and that essential loading requirements are accounted for.

You requested 20mph be implemented on Mauldeth Road.

Mauldeth Road at its closest is approx. 1.4km from the A6 and as such traffic management measures on Mauldeth Road are beyond the scope of the project.

You requested for a 24hr Bus Lane.

We are unable to change the hours of operation of the bus lanes currently as it is outside the scope of the consultation. Also, any alteration to the current restrictions would need to be considered for the whole route (Stockport and Manchester) at a GM level and would be subject to further consultation and legal process.

You said you’re against shared pedestrian/cyclist spaces.

We have proposed shared pedestrian/cyclist spaces where segregated cycle paths cannot be provided due to limited space. The extents of such shared space are kept to the minimum needed to serve, for example, a Toucan crossing.

You said bus lanes should not be extended.

We have proposed bus lane extensions as they will connect the existing bus lanes to help improve bus journeys by:

• Helping to increase the number of people travelling by bus and thus reducing the amount of car journeys and encouraging more active travel.
• Helping to improve bus journey times on the A6 between Manchester and Stockport.
• Helping to improve the reliability of buses on the A6 between Manchester and Stockport.
• Helping to improve connections with other modes of transport by improving the reliability and bus journey times.

You said the A6 should be made more pedestrian / cycle friendly.

Proposals for this scheme include: 

  • Raised tables at junctions with side roads, including footway improvements and uncontrolled pedestrian crossings.
  • Widened footways
  • Puffin crossings for pedestrians.
  • Toucan crossings with shared use cycle/footways.
  • Local segregated cycleways.
  • Wayfinding signage.

We have also proposed two alternative cycling routes which use the existing network and are designed to provide a safer route by avoiding busy main roads where possible, whilst still trying to have a comparatively direct route. The proposed routes also provide connections to local schools, residential areas, and other local amenities.

You said you think that cyclists may not use the proposed cycle routes.

 

We have proposed two alternative cycling routes which use the existing network and are designed to provide a safer route by avoiding busy main roads where possible, whilst still trying to have a comparatively direct route. The proposed routes also provide connections to local schools, residential areas, and other local amenities.  The scheme will be subject to activation measures when completed and future usage will be monitored.

 

You said all roads leading off the A6 should be one-way.

One way streets increase vehicle mileage and can increase vehicle speeds on local streets, hence they are only used were considered essential.  We are not currently proposing to introduce new one-way roads off the A6.

You said you’re against the potential loss of parking.

We are conscious of the need to maintain parking where it can safely be accommodated without detriment to safety, operation, and the needs of vulnerable road users. We have sought to maintain that balance but, in some locations, on-street parking provisions will be removed.  Where this occurs, it will be minimised to that necessary to achieve the aims and objectives of the project.

GM Transport Policy places the needs of pedestrians and cyclists above the need to provide for the parking of private motor vehicles.

You said the Glenfield Road Traffic signals are unnecessary.

We have proposed this crossing to serve pedestrians and cyclists crossing Warwick Rd or Glenfield Rd at the junction itself. The current crossing on the A6 south of the junction is not as direct or convenient for this purpose.

We have carried out a survey and the requirement for a signalised junction with shared pedestrian and cycling facilities has been assessed and the proposal is deemed suitable. The signals will also help vehicles access the A6 from the side roads.

You said you’re against cyclists being encouraged to use Leegate Road.

Currently, Leegate Road is accessible to cyclists and helps connect to the existing network. We are proposing to use the existing network along with a combination of off-road paths and quiet roads which are already linked to the wider cycle network, to create an alternate route to using the A6.

Our aim is to help encourage people to become more active and make fewer car journeys to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution and to help tackle climate change. Part of this is to make it easier and more attractive for residents to make journeys on foot or by bike.

You requested for maintenance on Leegate Road.

We have proposed to improve the existing surface of Leegate Road, subject to agreement with the landowners (as it is a private road).

You said you’re against raised junction tables.

We have proposed raised junction tables to benefit all road users, including cyclists and pedestrians. We have found raised junction tables work well as a traffic calming measure to help reduce the speed of traffic as well as improving pedestrian crossings.

You said opening up the gateway between the adopted and unadopted parts of Leegate Road could allow access for motorcyclists.

We have not proposed any access controls other than bollards at 1.5m spacing as those that prevent motorcycle use also prevent access for mobility aids such as disability scooters.

You said the western cycle route should go through Heaton Moor Golf Course.

We have considered adapting the existing PROW for pedestrians which crosses the course for cycle use but there were safety concerns associated with a cycle path on the same route. As Heaton Moor Golf Club is privately owned, any proposals are subject to agreement with the landowner.

You said you’re against cycle route along St James Road.

The cycle markings have been omitted from the scheme.

You said the contra-flow cycle lane needs physical segregation.

Physical segregation at the entrance to the road will be considered when the scheme is subjected to detailed design. Signage and road markings will also be used to inform both drivers and cyclists. Where we propose this, there will also generally be proposals to introduce a 20mph speed limit.

You said you’re against changing the priority of traffic on Broomfield Road / Warwick Road.

We have revised the proposed cycle route and the change in priority has been omitted.

You said that you’re concerned about the safety of the public in shared spaces.

In the past, we have schemes involving shared spaces that have proved safe in operation and the future schemes will be subject to a Road Safety Audit and will be monitored in case any safety issues arise. We are only proposing shared spaces where segregated cycle paths cannot be provided due to limited space.

You said you’re against the crossing on Heaton Moor Road / Peel Moat Road / Broomfield Road.

This signal junction is part of a previously approved scheme that will be implemented in 2025.

You requested no access to motor traffic on Warwick Road.

It is not necessary to close off access to motor traffic on Warwick Road, to support this scheme. We have instead proposed a 3.5-tonne weight limit to facilitate the widening of the footways over the railway bridge.

Any scheme to close Warwick Rd completely to traffic would require separate consultation/approval processes.

You said there is no need for a cycle route down Heaton Road as no one cycles that way.

We have found that Heaton Road is currently used by cyclists. Part of our proposals contain a section of Heaton Road which forms part of the western cycle route, to provide an alternative route to the A6, designed to provide a safer journey by avoiding busy main roads where possible, whilst still providing comparatively direct route. The proposed route also provides connections to local schools, residential areas, and other local amenities.

You requested we add double yellow lines near the greenspace at Heaton Road / Parsonage Road junction.

Parking restrictions (No Waiting At Any Time [NWAAT] / double yellow lines) were not included in the consultation. Any proposed parking restrictions will be subject to an additional consultation process at a later date. NWAAT Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO) at this location will be considered.

You asked for segregated cycle lanes running down the A6.

Unfortunately, we are unable to provide segregated cycle lanes running down the A6 as:

1) The project is primarily aimed at the improvement of bus services and facilities on the A6.  As such removal of the current bus lanes to provide segregated cycle facilities was not feasible.

2) Between Crossley Road and Manchester Road, the road corridor is too narrow.

3)Between Manchester Road and Heaton Road the corridor is wider.  However, at busy junctions where a right turn lane is required, at bus stops and in locations where parking is allowed, third-party land would need to be acquired to allow for the provision of a segregated cycleway, which is beyond the scope of this scheme. 

4) A single two-way cycle track was considered but was ultimately deemed unsafe due to possible conflicts at junctions.

5) At signal junctions, provisions would need to be made for ‘CYCLOPS’ type arrangements.  These have been investigated but, in all cases, would need land beyond the Highway boundary to provide them, which is beyond the scope of this scheme.

For the above reasons, the provision of segregated cycleways along the A6 is beyond the budget or timetable. Scheme development, approval, TRO and CPO processes would take the scheme well beyond the March 2027 deadline for completion and the budget would need to be increased to accommodate more changes to kerb lines, statutory undertakers apparatus diversions and land acquisition.

We asked

Stockport Council has secured £20m worth of Capital Levelling Up funding towards the Marple Active Communities Hub and we sought your views on the design of the Leisure and Community Hub as well as walking, cycling and highways improvements to be delivered at the same time, all of which formed part of the funding bid.

You said

  • People living nearby should not be adversely affected
  • The range of facilities proposed at the hub was received positively by consultees
  • There should be a greater amount of on-site car parking
  • Memorial Drive should be widened
  • Retain trees, particularly on Station Road
  • Improve accessibility of health clinic
  • There should be more sustainable features proposed
  • The pool spectator area should not be accessed through the changing rooms
  • Toilets to be available to all not just users of leisure centre
  • Improve the appearance of Hollins House including the removal of the extension.
  • Improve children’s play provision as part of the scheme and include communal outdoor space with seating.
  • The development should not increase the risk of flooding
  • Cycle and disabled parking should be close to the Hub entrance
  • The library should include workspaces and break out areas
  • The sandpit at infant play area should be removed
  • Removal of the level change within the library
  • You were in favour of the signal crossings proposed on Station Road at the canal and at Manor Hill Road
  • You were divided in your views on providing a new crossing near Ley Hey Road
  • You preferred the zebra crossing on Hollins Lane near ASDA to the one near Station Road
  • You supported the new crossing on Stockport Road near the cinema and the widened path through the park
  • You were not in favour of the proposed coach layby on Station Road

We did

You Said

We Did

People living nearby should not be adversely affected

Every effort has been made to ensure the living conditions of residents living close to the Site are not adversely affected by the Marpe Community Hub project.

The design of the Hub has been informed by a range of technical assessments including highways, noise, air quality, ground conditions, and drainage assessments. All technical assessments undertaken will be submitted as part of the planning application submission and will be publicly accessible via Stockport Council’s planning register.

In addition, the construction of the new Hub will also be managed by a Construction Environment Management Plan to minimise any disruption. The Construction Environment Management Plan will include measures such as hours of working, delivery hours, construction traffic routes, dust mitigation measures, and site management contact details.

The range of facilities proposed at the hub were positive

Kept the range of facilities in the scheme.

There should be a greater amount of on-site car parking

The design team are continuing to review the area available for car parking and drive further efficiencies out of this space, to ensure that as many car parking bays as possible are provided, without compromising pedestrian and other park users safety.

The level of car parking provision has also been informed by a commitment to making Stockport a greener place to live alongside measures to  improve pedestrian and surrounding highways which aim to enhance sustainability of the hub. Levelling Up funding has been secured for this and will include:

  • Two new pedestrian crossing are proposed at Station Road.
  • A new zebra crossing is proposed on Hollins Lane at the junction with the Asda car park to improve the crossing.
  • A new signalised crossing is proposed on Stockport Road adjacent to Memorial Park Drive.
  • At Memorial Park: the path from Station Road to Hollins House has been moved to fit around the Marple Community Hub site footprint; and the path from the canal to Hollins House and Memorial Park Drive is to be resurfaced and widened to become a shared cycle/walking route.
  • Making it safer and easier to walk and cycle to the hub

Memorial Drive should be widened

The project team have looked closely at whether Memorial Drive could be widened. Detailed work identified that Memorial Drive would only be possible if mature trees were removed.

A significant number of consultation comments received requested the trees at Memorial Drive be kept.

So to balance both requests Memorial Drive is to be re-surfaced, and a new passing bay introduced to ensure that vehicular traffic can pass satisfactorily.

Retain trees, particularly on Station Road

The  proposed lay-by location on Station Road will not go ahead  and  trees on Station Road will remain in place.

Every effort has been made to keep as many trees at the site as possible and the  majority of trees will remain. However, some trees will need to be  removed to accommodate the new hub and the construction zones. For every tree removed three more will be planted.

Improve accessibility of health clinic

The clinic will be located on the first floor to make it more accessible. This change has also led to the removal of a floor from the building, reducing the overall number of floors proposed at the hub from three to two, however, maintaining the same amount of functional space.

There should be more sustainable features proposed

It has been a challenge  to make the Marple Community Hub, that includes a swimming pool as sustainable as possible. However, the new design now includes solar panels on the roof and a greater number of electric vehicle charging points means that the hub will be Net Zero Carbon in operation. The proposed hub will also have a new habitat created for wildlife resulting in   a 10% net gain in biodiversity.

The pool spectator area should not be accessed through the changing rooms

 Access to the pool spectator area will now be via the relocated café area.

Toilets to be available to all not just users of leisure centre

The new design has public toilets  located at the entrance lobby and will be available to all. By locating the new toilets in the Community Hub, they will be more secure and less susceptible to anti-social behaviour.

Improve the appearance of Hollins House including the removal of the extension.

Hollins House is not part of the planning application and funding isn’t available to make alterations to the building. However, a heritage consultant has advised on the design of the new hub to ensure that appropriate materials are used to complement Hollins House and not detract from its heritage significance.

Improve children’s play provision as part of the scheme and include communal outdoor space with seating.

This is being developed alongside a comprehensive landscaping and public realm strategy. The strategy will enhance children’s play facilities at Memorial Park with new informal play and a sensory / nature area. A new external seating area is proposed to the east elevation as part of the public realm which can cater to a range of requirements.

The development should not increase the risk of flooding

A drainage strategy form part of the proposed hub plans which ensures that there will be no flooding or surface water issues as a result of the development.

Cycle and disabled parking should be close to the hub entrance

Cycle and disabled parking are located within close proximity to the hub entrance to enable convenient access.

The library should include workspaces and break out areas

The hub includes versatile spaces such as a community room, meeting rooms, and seating areas in the library to cater to a range of needs.

The sandpit at infant play area should be removed

The sandpit from the infant play area will be removed.

Removal of the level change within the library

This has been removed to allow the area to be fully accessible. Any required level changes will now be addressed through the external landscaping strategy.

Marple Area Transport

In response to the comments received in both the drop-in sessions and the online engagement for the highway improvements to support a proposed new Marple Active Community Hub, which has received Levelling Up Funding, the following action has been taken:

You Said

We Did

You were in favour of the signal crossings proposed on Station Road at the canal and at Manor Hill Road

 

We will keep the signal crossings in the proposals

You were divided in your views on providing a new crossing near Ley Hey Road

 

We are not going to progress with these proposals for now

You preferred the zebra crossing on Hollins Lane near ASDA to the one near Station Road

 

We are going to retain the ASDA crossing in the proposals but drop the one near Station Road

You supported the new crossing on Stockport Road near the cinema and the widened path through the park

 

We are going to keep these in the proposals

You were not in favour of the proposed coach layby on Station Road

 

This will be removed and the new proposals will include the preferred coach parking on Stockport Road.

 

We asked

We sought your views on the School Street trial at St Thomas’s CofE Primary School in Heaton Chapel around: whether or not it should continue as a permanent scheme; views on how it operated; and what changes respondents would like to see if it became permanent.

 

You said

There were a total of 265 responses.  119 parents/guardians indicated that they would like the scheme to continue unchanged with 10 responding that they would not.  19 residents who were permit holders (not parents/guardians) indicated that they would like the scheme to continue unchanged, with 3 seeking changes and 13 against its continuation.  Of residents in the wider neighbourhood, 61 respondents indicated that they would be happy to see the School Street continue, 6 sought changes and 20 were against.

The key suggestions arising from the consultation were:

  • Additional traffic management measures and signage
  • Additional enforcement
  • More road safety training for children
  • Addressing antisocial and dangerous driving and parking by parents
  • Alternative car parking
  • Clarification of the role of marshals

We did

The consultation comments and analysis have been shared with the Ward Councillors who have agreed that the scheme should continue.  Changes suggested will be explored further and may be progressed should funding become available. 

We asked

  • We asked for your views on whether we should replace the 6-month Expedited Public Spaces Protection Order (E-PSPO), which was due to expire in May 2023, with a 3-year Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO).
  • The council has duties to protect the health and safety of its staff, as well as to promote the health and wellbeing of residents, including those who are seeking vaccination against COVID-19.
  • We consulted on these proposals to explore resident views on whether the proposed PSPO would achieve this without unduly weakening the right to peaceful protest.

You said

This consultation had 17 responses. 88.2% of respondents were in favour of the introducing the 3-year PSPO.

Those who agreed with the proposal stated protestors were intimidating and aggressive to staff. Further comments were made regarding the effect on the wider public, including  “One Stockport Hub is a family friendly environment and the aggressive nature of the protests deterred residents from visiting, both for vaccinations and to use the space with their families”, and another saying that the E-PSPO “was very effective in minimising distress to staff and members of the public.” 

The respondents who were both for and against the proposal commented on the right to peaceful protest, and safeguarding staff against intimidation.

Those who did not agree with the proposal questioned whether it was needed for a further three years, given that the intimidating and aggressive behaviour outside the clinics  is vastly reduced.

We did

  • On 2 May 2023, the Cabinet Member for Health and Adult Social Care considered the responses to this consultation, together with the previous consultation on the E-PSPO.
  • The Cabinet Member decided to end the E-PSPO and replace it with a three-year Public Spaces Protection Order.
  • This PSPO was issued on 22 May 2023, and can be found at https://www.stockport.gov.uk/pspo/vaccination-centres

We asked

We wanted to know what the people living near Hawk Green think about a plan we have. We're thinking of putting a picnic bench and a special plaque to remember things that happened during the COVID times. This is part of a project called the COVID Community Commemoration Fund.

We asked the residents near the village green three different places where we could put the bench. We also gave them the choice to say they don't like the idea at all. We want to make sure everyone is happy with what we're planning!

You said

A total of 44 responses were received.

27 respondents (61%) rejected the proposal and 17 (39%) were in favour.

Reasons given 

In the main, the objections submitted related to the potential for an increase in anti-social behaviour and litter on the green and an increase in local traffic congestion.

Preferred location

Of those in favour of the installation (17):

  • 10 (59%) opted for the location adjacent to Hawk Green Road, near The Crown public house
  • 4 (24%) for the location to the west of the existing play area 
  • 3 (18%) for the location to the north of the play area

We did

Based on what you told us, we're changing our plan. Instead of putting in a picnic table, we're going to install a planter (like a big flower pot) and a special plaque. And guess what? We're putting the planter near Hawk Green Road, close to The Crown public house, just like you suggested! Thanks for your input – it really helped us make a cool decision!

 

We asked

We asked for the views of residents and commuters on the trial Road Closure of Hartington Road to Park Road.

You said

Stockport Council is currently analysing all consultation responses received regarding the Hartington Road Trial Road Closure – thank you for your engagement.

We did

The results from this consultation will be presented at a future Marple Area Committee. Please use the following link to view the Council’s monthly meetings calendar: Monthly meetings calendar - April 2023 - Stockport Council. This page will be updated when the report is ready to be presented.

We asked

We sought your views on the Regulation 16 version of the Marple Neighbourhood Plan as part of a six-week public consultation. A series of questions were asked on its content to see how far you agreed or disagreed with each section and whether you would do anything differently.

You said

There were a total of 19 responses to the online survey. Most were in agreement with the Plan with particular support for policies on the protection of indoor community spaces, open spaces, historic assets and spaces for coworking. The key themes arising from the survey in relation to specific chapters include the following:

  • Town Centre: A new food store could harm independent food retailers, the environment needs to be improved.
  • Getting Around: Emphasis on resolving transport connections and congestion is crucial. Policies to discourage car use not appropriate in an isolated town such as Marple and where many older people have specialist access needs.
  • Housing: Proposals to change the demographics are not likely to succeed. Development should be minimised to preserve character.
  • Natural Capital and Climate Change: New open spaces should be created as well as protecting existing assets. Support and criticism on climate change proposals.
  • Community Space: The aspiration for Marple Memorial Park is largely welcomed, although there is some preference for other sites and queries raised about the existing swimming pool site.
  • Heritage and Tourism: Agreement that Goyt Mill has potential for alternative uses.
  • Business and Employment: Importance of supporting independent small businesses.

Areas suggested for improvement include the need to for the Plan to consider children and young people, use the most up-to-date data, and to address the impact of the pandemic on commuting and working patterns.

We did

The consultation comments have been shared with Marple Neighbourhood Forum who will decide whether any minor modifications should be made. The Plan will be subject to an independent Examination later this year and if successful, will be brought forward for a Referendum.

We asked

We asked you to review the JSNA (Joint strategic needs assessment) analysis and report into Mental Health and Wellbeing, asking for your comments and for any additional information that should be considered.

 

 

You said

Those who responded felt that on balance the report reflected their views and knowledge of this issue for Stockport and no-one disagreed with the findings. Respondents commented on the impact of shorter working weeks and housing on wellbeing. Respondents also highlighted what they should be the emerging priorities as the result of the report.

We did

We discussed the findings with those who are developing Stockport’s Mental Health and Wellbeing strategy and the JSNA and Strategy have now been finalised. The JSNA will be published on www.stockportjsna.org.uk once IT upgrades have been completed.

We asked

We asked for your views on the proposed implementation of a Toucan Crossing on Broadstone Road and the associated provision of raised junction tables, footway buildouts and dropped kerbs with tactile paving on Broadstone Road, Keswick Road and Briarfield Road. These proposals are being developed as part of the Government’s City Region Sustainable Transport Settlement (CRSTS) Bus Pinch Points scheme to support sustainable travel choices and improve safety whilst maintaining and managing the performance of our existing transport network.

You said

A total of 104 responses were received with 59% of respondents supporting the proposals to introduce the Toucan Crossing, whilst 39% were against and 2% were impartial. Associated proposals were also generally supported by respondents; the proposals to introduce raised table junctions, and bus stop upgrades received 62% & 56% of agreement respectively.

We did

Following the overall positive feedback from the consultation exercise, the proposed works were recommended for approval at the Central Stockport Area Committee held in March 2023 and subsequently approved by the Cabinet Member. We expect the TRO’s to be advertised in Autumn 2023. Subject to further funding, the scheme will now progress through Detailed Design to be constructed in early 2024.

We asked

We asked for your views on a number of highway proposals on Bramhall Lane. These proposals included the potential implementation of a Toucan Crossing on Bramhall Lane close to the junction with Beech Road, with the associated provision of a footway buildout and one-way route going westbound on Beech Road. Additional proposals involved pedestrian improvements along Bramhall Lane, including footway buildouts on Cale Green & Adswood Lane East and tactile paving to improve the pedestrian route along Hallam Street, a shared use footway and cycle path through Hallam Park, as well as a number of TRO’s (parking restrictions) and bus stop upgrades. These proposals form part of the Government’s City Region Sustainable Transport Settlement (CRSTS) Bus Pinch Points scheme to support sustainable travel choices and improve safety whilst maintaining and managing the performance of our existing transport network.

You said

A total of 64 responses were received with 52% of respondents supporting the general principles of the proposals, whilst 42% of respondents were against and 6% neither agreed nor disagreed. In relation to specific elements of the scheme the majority of residents agreed with the all of the proposals to introduce a toucan crossing, footway buildouts, No Waiting at Any Time restrictions (double yellow lines), shared footway/ cycleway through Hallam Park, bus stop upgrades and improved pedestrian facilities on Hallam Street.

 

There were a number of comments made in response to the survey which expressed concerns that the proposals to introduce a one-way system on Beech Road could result in an increase in traffic on surrounding roads. In response to this feedback, traffic counts were undertaken on Beech Road and neighbouring side roads to understand the effects the one-way system would have on traffic flow along the neighbouring roads.  It was determined that the levels of traffic on Beech Road were minimal and were not considered to represent a significant impact for adjacent side roads. However, in order to reduce a potential increase in congestion on Heath Road, it was proposed to extend the existing No Waiting at Any Time restrictions (double yellow lines) on the south side of Heathfield Road.

We did

Following the overall positive feedback from the consultation exercise and the changes made to the proposals to reflect the consultation feedback, the proposed works were recommended for approval at the Central Stockport Area Committee held in June 2023 and subsequently approved by the Cabinet Member. Subject to further funding, the scheme will now progress through Detailed Design to be constructed in early 2024

We asked

We asked for your views on the potential implementation of Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) and associated signage and implementation of dropped kerbs with tactile paving; as part of a Road Safety around Schools scheme to support the Council’s overall strategic ambition to increase the number of children walking or cycling to school.

You said

A total of 81 responses were received with an equal split of 44% respondents supporting /against the proposals. 33 respondents strongly disagreed with the proposals, all of whom commented on the proposed parking restrictions. whilst 25 respondents that strongly agreed with the proposals some felt that the proposed restrictions don’t go far enough.

We did

In response to the feedback received, the proposed restrictions on Clough Meadow and Northdown Avenue will be reduced.  The consultation responses have been reviewed and analysed and will be discussed with ward members. This may lead to a reduction in the extent of parking restrictions proposed.

What happens next?

A meeting is proposed to discuss changes and amendments to the scheme will be carried out before the proposed scheme and report is presented to the Werneth Area Committee in April 2023, alternatively June 2023. If approved to continue with changes the TROs are expected to be advertised in late spring/summer 2023

We asked

We asked for the views of those who live and work in Stockport on the Council’s proposal to close St Mary’s RC school.

You said

  • There were 241 responses. A third were parents or carers. Nearly half were 'other interested parties"
  • 88% disagreed that the council has no other option available other than close the school. 61% believe there are other options that the council should consider
  • 91% do not support the closure of the school
  • 63% do not support the admissions process should the council choose to close the school

We did

Given the strength of consultation feedback and the position taken by the Diocese of Salford and their Trustees of the Emmaus Trust further time is sought before a decision is made on the closure of the school.

A pause will allow time for the Trustees to fully consider the feedback from consultation and establish a final position as to whether the school should be converted into their Trust.

The decision is to pause considerations of discontinuance until June 2023 at which point, should it be necessary, a further officer decision will be taken regarding the progress of the discontinuance process.

We asked

We asked for your views on the Expedited Public Spaces Protection Order (E-PSPO) for the safety of staff and visitors to vaccination centres. The order aims to protect the public from the harm that some protests can cause around schools, vaccination centres and NHS Test and Trace sites. The order is not designed to restrict free speech or the right to protest, however it is intended to ensure  both the public using the services, and staff and volunteers providing them can do so free from intimidation, harassment and any restriction of access to those services.

You said

There were a total of 27 responses to the survey which allowed members of the public to share their views and experiences of the order and its requirements.

When asked about interference to the vaccination centres, all respondents agreed this should be covered by the E-PSPO. We also asked about signage, text and images used, with 100% of respondents agreeing it should be a requirement of the E-PSPO to be removed if breaching it. The majority of respondents stated these behaviours had a major impact and led to harassment and intimidation.

Overall 96% of respondents completing the survey agreed with the council’s decision to introduce a 6 month E- PSPO to help prevent harassment, intimidation and impediment at COVID-19 vaccination clinics in Stockport.

We did

The results highlight the concerns regarding the behaviour around COVID- 19 vaccination sites for staff and service users. As a result of this consultation, we are opening a further consultation to seek views on replacing the e-PSPO with a 3-year public spaces protection order, which would be otherwise identical in its effect to the e-PSPO.

We asked

Participants were asked to consider the following eight proposed changes to the Adult Social Care Direct Payments Policy:

  1. Unspent funds - we will be more flexible when we look at any unspent funds in Direct Payment accounts. We will no longer automatically claim back unspent funds which are in excess of eight weeks. Instead, we will ask DP clients what their plans are for any unspent funds. For example, they may be planning to spend it later in the year on something that has been agreed will meet the outcomes in their support plan. If this is the case, they will be able to keep the money in their account until they need it.
  2. Support from family members - if we think it is necessary, DP clients will be able to ask a family member to manage their Direct Payment and for another family member to be paid to provide their support.  We have also deleted the section that said that a family member living in the same house as a DP client should only be paid to provide their support in exceptional circumstances.
  3. Using personal bank accounts – under the new policy it will be possible to have a Direct Payment paid into a personal bank account. Though we will continue to recommend that people set up a separate bank account as this will make it easier for them to administer DP monies and avoid them having to share generic details of other non-DP related financial transactions.
  4. Holiday costs - sometimes Direct Payments are used for respite, this means that DP clients might spend some time away from their carer, or the people they live with. They might choose a traditional form of respite, where support is offered on site. Or they may decide to go on holiday with their Personal Assistant or another family member or friend who doesn’t normally care for them. The new policy says that, with our agreement, they can, in liaison with their social worker, use their Direct Payment to pay towards travel and accommodation costs if they decide to go on holiday for respite where this has been identified as an outcome of their Care Act assessment. 
  5. Travel expenses - Direct Payments will not normally be used for daily travel expenses, but we may agree to fund reasonable travel expenses if we feel that DP clients need this because of their individual circumstances. 
  6. Paying for Council services and using DPs outside the UK – we have removed the statements that said that DP clients could not use their Direct Payment to pay for services from the council or to pay for things outside of the United Kingdom.
  7. Paying for leisure activities - we will support DP clients to explore leisure activities that they are interested in and enjoy where these will meet the outcomes included in their support plan. We will not rule out anything unless the items and activities they are suggesting do not meet the outcomes in their support plan. Principles of Best Value will also apply.
  8. Periods away from home – DP clients will no longer need to let us know of plans to spend time away from home.

You said

A total of 340 representations were received, with 259 responses from client/carers, 37 from members of staff and 44 from members of the public. A further 61 people were engaged through focus group discussions.

With overall agreement of fifteen percent for proposal three ‘Using a personal bank account’, this was the least agreeable of the eight proposals and was particularly unpopular with staff taking part in the consultation. Proposal six ‘Paying for Council services and using DPs outside the UK’ proved to be unpopular across all groups consulted, with just one in five staff agreeing with the proposal.

For clients and carers, proposal two ‘Support from family members’ proved to be the most agreeable with proposal one ‘Unspent funds’ and proposal four ‘Holiday costs’ a close second.

Strong themes have appeared throughout the consultation.

Responses about what people like about the proposals can be broadly set out into 3 categories:

  1. Flexibility and control

Across all proposals, a key theme was that the policy would give greater control and flexibility to the client. It will also give greater flexibility to staff members who will be able to be more creative and have more responsibility when writing support plans. It was noted that this needs to be communicated to practitioners so that support plans can be altered to reflect the flexibility.

  1. Mental health and wellbeing

Respondents largely felt that the proposed changes would improve their own, or the person they care for’s mental health and wellbeing. This was particularly prevalent on proposals relating to unspent funds and leisure activities.

  1. Cost of living

A key theme across the proposals was that the changes will help ease financial pressures felt by clients and carers. For example, travelling to appointments and other activities set out in the care plan, paying family members, and using Direct Payments to pay for leisure activities.

Responses about how the proposals could be improved can be broadly set out into 3 categories:

  1. Language around leisure

Respondents felt that the language under proposal seven: using your Direct Payment to pay for leisure activities could be rephrased. For example, the terms wellbeing or wellness should be used instead. Also, it was found that the language under proposal 6: paying for council services and spending your Direct Payment outside of the UK needs to be clearer.

  1. Clarity

A key theme across all proposals was that clarity and training is needed within the policy so that Practitioners can effectively and confidently write support plans and that clients and carers can confidently use their Direct Payment to fulfil their needs. Clarification is needed on proposal three that using the same bank is a choice, not a requirement and how this will be audited. Also, clear guidance on how Direct Payments can be used for holiday and/or respite, and travel. There also needs to be guidance on what leisure activities are acceptable and how this will be managed by practitioners. Furthermore, clarity is needed on whether there are any rules on people spending prolonged periods of time away from home. There also needs to be assurance that the policies will be linked to individual outcomes.

  1. Scope for misuse

Another key theme across the proposals was a concern for the possibility of proposals being open for misuse. This was particularly prevalent through the proposals relating to unspent funds and paying family members. Respondents felt that there needs to be a defined process to reduce the risk of misinterpretation as funds are derived from the public purse.

We did

Summary of the feedback we received and the action we plan to take in response to it:

Feedback

Action proposed in response to feedback

Repayment of monies reclaimed under old policy

The Council has already contacted just over one hundred clients and carers where any reductions in care were made under the old policy.  It has now reviewed the care needs for these clients and where necessary, reinstated support plans.  If you were negatively affected by the previous policy and we have not yet been in touch with you, then please call us on 0161 218 1450 or email us at dp.review@stockport.gov.uk and we will respond as quickly as possible.

Maintain consistent approach/interpretation of policy, and

practitioners to be informed about how support plans can be altered to allow flexibility

We have developed a staff training and communication plan.  This consists of a series of briefings for managers in Adult Social Care, followed by a training programme for all staff who work on direct payments in Adult Social Care.  We will also be providing updated written guidance and an e-learning training package for staff.    This training programme will also have a focus on how social workers can develop flexibility in support plans. 

Ensure that policy is not abused – e.g., Paying families and paying for leisure activities

We will monitor use of Direct Payment funds through our review and audit processes.  This involves an initial check by the Brokerage Service and the allocated social worker within the first six weeks of a payment. This is to assure the council that the service user understands their responsibilities and is coping well with the expected administration of the account. A formal audit will be undertaken at four months – this allows time for a pattern of spend to be established and for the first bank statement to arrive. If there are no issues with the first audit, they will be carried out every six months. 

Rephrase communication asking for repayments to avoid stress to families

We have already started to review all our correspondence to Direct Payment clients to ensure that it is written in a way that doesn’t cause unnecessary stress.  We will share our revised documentation with the Stockport Advocacy Group to seek their feedback on our changes.

Clarification needed that using the same bank account is a choice, not a requirement, and

clarification on how using same bank account for DP will be managed in terms of audit

We recognise that further guidance is needed for people using personal bank accounts to manage Direct Payments.   We are in the process of developing this guidance, which will also include details of the processes we will use for auditing spend.

Guidance on how Direct Payments can be used for holidays and/or respite

We are currently working on improving the guidance and developing some examples to be included in our new policy.

Guidance on what kind of travel Direct Payments can be used for i.e., to what places, what form of transport and fair travel costs

We will be improving our guidance and providing examples in the new policy. 

Paying for council services and spending your Direct Payment outside of the UK language needs to be clearer, and

guidance on using Direct Payments outside of UK will be managed by practitioners

Examples will be included in the new policy and guidance will be provided for practitioners.

Term ‘leisure’ re worded under proposal 7, and

guidance on what leisure activities are acceptable and how this will be managed by practitioners

We have removed the word ‘leisure’ from the Direct Payment Policy because we felt it was misleading, instead we will refer to wellbeing activities to meet a person’s assessed outcomes under the Care Act.  We feel this provides clearer guidance for clients and carers.   We will not be providing a list of which activities are acceptable as we feel that this is dependent on assessed care act needs and finding the best activity to help an individual meet those needs.  However, we will still provide a list of activities that are not acceptable in the policy, such as those that involve gambling or alcohol.

Guidance on whether there are any rules on people spending prolonged time away from home

We will not be introducing any rules regarding prolonged periods away from home.

 

We asked

We asked for your views on the potential implementation of Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) and associated signage, bollards and implementation of dropped kerbs with tactile paving; as part of a Road Safety around Schools scheme to support the Council’s overall strategic ambition to increase the number of children walking or cycling to school.

You said

From 37 letters deliver and 10 on street notices we received 1 positive response from a resident who strongly agreed with the proposals.

We did

A report was submitted to the Central Stockport Area committee in January 2023 where approval was granted for the scheme, including advertisement of the TROs.    Following advertisement of the TRO’s no objections were received during the consultation period, therefore the order was made. Works have been ordered and are nearing completion on site.

We asked

Between Monday 30th May and Monday 20th June 2022 we asked for your views on the introduction of a 20mph speed limit zone with supporting signs and the installation of temporary traffic calming cushions on Finney Lane, Heald Green. This scheme was implemented to make the local areas safer for everyone who uses it using the government’s Safe Streets Saves Lives grant.

You said

A total of 540 responses were received, 525 were residents, although representations were received from two local businesses.

  • 25% of respondents were in favour of the proposed changes before they were introduced – 46% were not
  • 60% support the 20mph zone – 36% do not
  • 27% support the introduction of speed cushions – 71% do not

We did

Following on from the consultation, the Cheadle Area Committee recommended the Cabinet Member approve the proposal to make the 20mph speed limit zone with supporting signs permanent and to remove the installation of temporary traffic calming cushions on Finney Lane, Heald Green. Please see the decision here: https://stockport.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/705148

We asked

Between 11-28 March 2022 we asked for your views on the proposal to trial a part closure of Stonepail Road Gatley with the introduction of a modal filter and planters/bollards .  This proposal was one of a series of traffic calming measures introduced in Gatley and other areas around Stockport.

You said

A total of 44 responses were received, predominantly from residents, although representations were received from five local businesses.

  • 41% of respondents were in favour of the proposed changes before they were introduced, 43% were not
  • 48% support the introduction of the modal filter, 41% do not
  • 48% support the introduction of bollards/planters – 45% do not

Key Issues raised were with regards to parking and safe movement around the junctions. 

We did

Following issues raised around parking and safe movement around the junctions,  Councillors have asked officers to revisit plans for Stonepail Road.  Affected residents will be contacted in due course outlining the proposals.

We asked

We asked how far you agreed or disagreed with the Stockport Active Communities Strategy principles, approach, priority groups and action priorities.

You said

There were a total of 94 responses to the online survey. 69.15% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the proposed whole systems approach; 67.03% either agreed or strongly agreed with the proposed principles and approach; 70.22% either agreed or strongly agreed with the identified priority groups and 29.79% respondents felt that there were some action priorities missing. The key themes arising from the survey were that everyone needs to be included and that accessibility and inclusivity is of upmost importance. It is also about getting everyone involved through good communications and leading by example. 

We did

The next stage of development is the implementation plan and that is the stage when we will not only consider in detail what we propose to do to further support and facilitate activity for our priority groups but also consider how to measure impact.

We asked

We asked for your views on the potential introducton of a prebooked minimum journey free for Hackney Carriages.

You said

There were real concerns regarding the proposal from people who either use hackney carriages or who are carers for people who use hackney carriages.  Your told us of your concerns around the increased cost associated with a prebooked fare.

Yout said that you felt aggrieved by the proposal for a prebooked minimum fare and their response is that they would use private hire instead.

We did

Results indicated concerns from service users regarding  the request for the introduction of a  minimum fare to be charged for prebooked hackney carriage journeys.

The concerns were re-laid to the hackney carriage trade association who have decided to withdraw their request for a prebooked minimum fare from the current fare review.

The hackney carriage trade association have asked the Council to undertake research with other local  authorities to see if any similar schemes operate successfully in other council areas, so that the matter may be considered in any future hackney carriage fare review

We asked

We asked for your views on the potential implementation of Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) and associated signage; implementation of bollards and dropped kerbs with tactile paving; road markings; speed limit repeater signs and new school warning signs as part of a Road Safety around Schools scheme to support the Council’s overall strategic ambition to increase the number of children walking or cycling to school.

You said

A total of 9 responses were received with 78% of respondents supporting the proposals.

We did

The proposed scheme was approved at the Central Stockport Area Committee on the 10th March 2022. The TROs are expected to be advertised in spring/summer 2022.

The full report can be viewed on the Council’s Democracy web pages here (Item 11): https://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=148&MId=27523&Ver=4