Chi Onwurah seeks comments on proposals for the Blue House roundabout

Chi will be meeting with Newcastle City Council on Wednesday 3rd August to discuss the proposals for the Blue House roundabout which will see parts of Little Moor Dukes Moor turned into a new roundabout.

Chi will be voicing her own deep concerns at the meeting and is looking for comments and questions to put to the council.

The Council’s proposals can be viewed in full and commented on here.

A petition against the proposals has been started and can be signed here.


25 thoughts on “Chi Onwurah seeks comments on proposals for the Blue House roundabout

  1. Ewan Jobe

    There is definitely room to tidy up the existing roundabout and add more clear lane markings – for example uninterrupted left turn lanes on some of the junctions, or even a traffic light system. You can improve safety without the massive investment, disruption and destruction of green space that this plan would cause. For that level of investment I would even consider moving the foot and cycle paths leading to the roundabout to the other side of the tree line, which would make more space for widening, adding lanes or other changes to the road system and it would help to deal with the noise, air and safety concerns of people who have to walk and cycle right next to a high volume of fast moving traffic.

  2. Geraint Williams

    There are plenty of good comments here:

    I have a general question about cycling though as it pertains to this and most previous or future transport development. How can road planners get it so wrong every time?
    Newcastle is twinned with Groningen. Can someone go and visit and bring back a town planner who understands provision that works for all types of cyclists, pedestrians and cars?

  3. Chris Durham

    As others have commented there is scope for improving the existing roundabout without enlarging it to the extent the council proposes. For example, when approaching the roundabout from Gosforth the far right lane should only be for the right as I think having two lanes for straight ahead is dangerous. Cities need green spaces for people to find their peace in and for animals to thrive. The kind of giant roundabout envisaged by the council is unnecessary for a city the size of Newcastle.

  4. Alison Fowler

    Comments from residents’ group SPACE (Safe Pedestrian and Cycling Environment) for Gosforth, are in our article on the Blue House proposals on .

    We’ve raised and responded to these questions:
    Are there safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists through and across these junctions?
    Are the routes sufficiently direct and easy to use that they will encourage people to use them rather than riding on the road or using informal crossing points instead of those provided?
    Do the junctions promote the efficient movement of pedestrians and cyclists in all directions to make it easier and quicker to walk or cycle?
    Are walking and cycling routes usable by people of all ages and abilities, and for cycling especially do they connect to a wider network of safe routes?
    Will the new junctions encourage more motor traffic, which will counteract any benefits by causing increased traffic, air pollution and reduced safety on surrounding streets?
    Are there better, simpler or more compact designs that will better achieve the same aims?

  5. Fiona Bruce

    I’ve used this roundabout daily for over 30 years and I’d like to see the traffic statistics backing up the need for such a radical change as I rarely have a problem Even in rush hour you’re through there in around 5-10 minutes max. Statistics that I’ve seen from TADU show declining traffic volumes in the area. If you build a bigger roundabout it’s going to encourage more traffic and where will it go? There is still a pinch point on Gosforth High Street and Jesmond Dene Road with both roads going down to a single lane. Traffic jams are just going to move to a different place. I think the introduction of intelligent lights on the current roundabout, at the top of Osborne Road and at the end of Moorfield will be enough to improve the flow of traffic.

    Also don’t make Jesmond inaccessible from High West Jesmond or Gosforth by stopping the right hand turn into Osborne Road. Why not spend the money widening the metro bridge on Jesmond Dene Road and create three lanes there, with a right turn into Osborne Road, instead of the “motorway on the moor”.

    Why isn’t there more than one proposal on the table for us to consider? Why don’t the plans published in 2013 still work – they’d be a lot more acceptable!

    What have the Freemen to say? Have they been approached before publication of these plans? To quote their website the prime value of the Freemen’s rights is that they protect the open space for the City and its residents, that the Moor is often referred to as the “lungs of the City”. We need to protect the green space in our city for future generations.

    There is huge public opposition to these plans and I hope the Council are listening.

    1. Jeffrey Fox

      Whilst we are all quite rightly showing our objections to this dreadful proposal on enviromental grounds, the tremendous affect of the side road changes must not be overlooked. The banning of right turns in to Osborne Rd and the one way over the bridge on Moorfield should worry us all. If youhave not been aware of these and other changes, please look them up.
      Did you know that it will be IMPOSSIBLE to drive direct from Gosforth to Jesmond!

      Well said Fiona!

  6. Bill Dodds

    Dear Chi,
    Apologies for the long post but I think both Blue House Roundabout and Haddricks Mill Roundabout are problematic at the moment. They both have very bad safety records and cause massive severance problems for pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore, I don’t think that ‘do nothing is an option’.

    City Council officers are forecasting a 30% growth in traffic over the next 20 years due to population growth, housing developments (in Newcastle but also in North Tyneside, Gateshead and Northumberland which funnels cars through Newcastle) and increasing car ownership.

    I don’t think that we can accept that this is something that needs to happen. Blue House and Haddricks Mill are a wake up call for us to do something positive to prevent this predicted increase in traffic.

    Many of the major new housing developments already underway (or being planned) are on the outskirts of Newcastle/North Tyneside/Northumberland and are not served by public transport. This is the cause of the problem. They are very car-centric and current planning legislation means there is very little the council can do about it. This needs national action to make housing developments more sustainable.

    However, if nothing is done then Blue House and Haddricks Mill will be just the start of major junction enlargements and new road building to cope with traffic growth. Increased congestion, pollution, gridlock and more road accidents are not something to be accepted.

    The current proposals for the expansion of the Metro are very weak and rather limited in terms of vision – purely because the funding mechanisms are so restricted at the moment. Relying on new rail services along Scotswood Road (where not many people live) and up to Woodhorn Colliery doesn’t do it for me.

    What is needed is a completely different approach. It would be good to hear someone making the case for HS2 to be scrapped and the money used to modernise urban transport in our major cities – including Newcastle.

    Comprehensive Metro extensions to the West End of Newcastle, the new housing developments in northwest Newcastle, Gateshead, Washington, Northumberland, the Metro Centre, and Silverlink are the minimum requirements. Street running trams should also be introduced to other areas.

    Radical improvements in bus services are also vital and the North East councils should be encouraged and supported in trying again to exercise more control over bus services.

    Walking and cycling can play a far bigger role in helping people get around. For this to happen, massive improvements are necessary to bring this about. Newcastle is already doing what it can to provide more support for cycling, but restricted funding is again a problem here. It would be good if the government was challenged in parliament to do more.

    At Blue House Roundabout, SPACE for Gosforth is pushing for a ‘Dutch Style Roundabout’ which would be much smaller than the one being proposed but it would give greater priority to pedestrians and cyclists (and would be centred on the existing location). Protected cycle tracks would link in to other cycle routes currently being planned.

    Similarly, at Haddricks Mill, more should be done to give greater priority to cyclists and pedestrians using this area and deal with the severance issues. This is the only way that modal shift can be brought about. Newcastle Council has a target of 1 in 5 trips under 3 miles to be done by bike by 2020. This is the way forward.

    I’m not a great fan of the elected mayor proposal (as the expected price for devolution) but if it an elected mayor does come about ,then transport needs to be a key policy issue.

    As I said earlier, Blue House and Haddricks Mill are a wake up call for all of us. We don’t need to accept that a 30% increase in traffic growth is something that has to happen. It doesn’t have to be like this.

    Newcastle MPs can help play a leading role in not only resisting these changes but also fighting for the alternatives we so badly need. I’ll be in touch soon to let you know more about what SPACE is campaigning for.


  7. owen_brookes

    The Town Moor is an area of Common Land and should be kept as such. It is not a blank canvas for road developers.

  8. Jane Edminson

    I do no believe this scheme is an appropriate response to any issues – way over the top. The Great North Road is a beautiful approach to the city and thus scheme would ruin the green spaces. It needs a major rethink

  9. Robin

    Aside from the gross oversizing of the scheme, the no right turn onto Osborne Rd from Jesmond Dene Rd will lead to drivers using Beattie Ave and Sturdee Gardens as U-turn points. These family streets are already congested from parking, and being used as a rat run. This will make it dangerous and even more congested.

    Also why on earth would the council deliberately direct traffic to use Forsyth Rd – this will massively increase the traffic driving past West Jesmond Primary school, creating additional danger for children.

  10. Helen Averley

    This is the comments I have to make regarding the Blue house Roundabout – also posted to the Let’s Talk newcastle Consultation – More broadly it is interesting to see just how much money is being spent on roads, where is it coming from, and why is it being spent in what seems such a heavy handed way.

    This proposal is totally un-acceptable and none of the pros sited are actual or in any way outweigh the cons. I feel that this is an act of planning vandalism.

    I use this junction all the time – in all modes of transport for business and also privately. I also use the Town Moor recreationally.

    When using a bus from Gosforth ( church Road) to the city centre – my door to door time is less than 15 mins – this is really fast. Usually my drive time is also 15 mins – sometimes 10 mins. Sometimes it is longer – but this is always in an acceptable time frame. Indeed it is very fast and the rush hour lasts a short time compared with other cities and as such is a benefit of living in Newcastle rather than London – where it is extended.

    The Freemen have an asset in their hands which I am proud of and grateful for. I alway enjoy driving on this stretch of road precisely because of the rural nature of the Town Moor. I point out its special status as a protected land with grazing and wild life, to children and visitors and also enjoy the heritage of the Town Moor as a place of enjoyment – with the Hoppings being a huge annual attraction. The Town Moor stands as a symbol to us all that Green spaces matter. A rural heart to the city, with larks etc valued by everyone especial as there are so few gardens in the area. Indeed it is a protected landscape by an Act of Parliament ( which it seems is there to stand against this sort of planning.)

    The land is there to serve as a open space for the city, especially as very few of us have gardens. The Freemen of the City are supposed to protect it and the Politicians and their officers are supposed also to respect this it is a heritage space. I urge them to hold to this. The Moor has already had to cope with it’s bisection with the City Motorway.

    I do not see the need to “up-scale” this junction and I know it well.

    When I cycle it also takes me about 15 mins to get to the city – cycling as well as walking is safe with the pavements providing space for both. I feel safe on this junction as a pedestrian and as a cyclist as I only have one road to cross. This scheme is more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclist with 3x more lanes and roads of traffic driving faster to cross.

    You talk about carbon and air quality – this will not be improved with increased traffic ( encouraged by more roads) WE already have the Central motorway – the great North Road does not need to become a second motorway.

    It is no argument that the other options you have previously designed in the office would shave impacted more significantly on the landscape and trees of the Town Moor. This is still TOO BIG. Planners must not get carried away in CAD designs and presentations which show how they can design elaborate schemes. This is a real place and space. you are saying that this enable landscaping – WE already have landscaping it is the Town Moor landscape with avenues of trees and clear views across the Moor. Likewise it is not an acceptable argument to say that the benefit to traffic flow is so significant so as to make such a development on green spaces an over arching benefit. Motorists interests should snot be made paramount on Town Moor junctions.

    Sorry but using felled trees as seating is not in the benefit side of the analysis neither is more trees planted as this will not achieve the same environmental feel of the junction and landscape. And the “potential” of a wooded areas is not the same as guaranteeing one! ask therefor is not a benefit either.

    Residents and allotments will be impacted with more traffic closer to them.

    Also where is the impetus coming from all this road development? Where is the money coming from? Is it only available for roads – are roads really the priority? Please do not carve up the landscape just because money is available – there or other ways to do job creation, and to spend money – and it should only be spent if needed.

    Things that could work better my suggestions if work has to takes place :

    I concede that the roundabout is a bit too small. The solution should be as soft a touch on this historic landscape as possible. The planners have not done justice to the Town Moor in this proposed scheme.

    Any redevelopment of the Roundabout should be done in a minimalist way. With as small a foot print as possible and should be designed to keep the feeling of a rural cross roads, not a spaghetti junction or supper roundabout. ( it is not acceptable to say that this proposal is the smallest they have drawn to date – it can be much reduced). A basic roundabout is sufficient.

    If it were to be increased in size the roundabout should be kept in the confines of the existing road and possibly pavement, if necessary the Blue House building site could be used in the re-ordering to enlarge a simple roundabout. The cost of removing the building will probably be less than the cost of a larger roundabout. If it is more that should be acceptable. The sacrifice of a building is less important to me than the loss of all the green space in the proposal ( although I will sympathise with the owners).

    The pathway and cycle way can be set into the Moor boundary instead of adjacent to the road, a set of lights could be used to help with the phasing of peak hour traffic.

    If you have pots of money bury the road!

  11. George Ford

    Stopping people turning right into Osborne road will drive traffic onto Clayton Road. The CC intend to change the priority on Clayton Road to give way. When this was done on a temporary basis, cars backed up onto the carriageway. If this goes ahead then there will be even more stationary traffic on the carriageway. This is neither safe nor sensible. Seems to me that a council mentality of ‘use it of lose’ approach to available funding is driving the works we are seeing being undertaken rather that what is best for the city.

  12. David Mayne

    Please use your powers of persuasion etc to help the council come to their senses about this. We don’t want to lose this green space in the heart of a residential district of the city. The new roundabout is huge, and will result in faster movement of traffic making it less safe for cyclists (like myself) who regularly use this junction. I agree that the current roundabout does need some modification to make it safer, but this is not the way to do it.
    By increasing traffic flow, this will simply result in greater congestion on Gosforth High Street and Haddricks Mill Road. In addition, the plans to stop right turns into Osborne Road from Jesmond Dene Road, will result in more cars having to go via Blue House, cutting through Forsyth Road past West Jesmond School.
    It is an obscene waste of money; money which could be spent on so many other road improvement projects around the city, and maybe promote cycling and walking, and public transport use, instead of encouraging more car traffic.
    Also, the it would be period of consultation is ridiculously short, especially at a time when many people are away. One might be forgiven for thinking that this was a deliberate ploy in order to get the proposals through without people realising. If this were true, it would be a shameful disgrace to democracy

  13. Doug Michael

    I think most people have been genuinely shocked by this proposal and its implications. Currently >1000 comments on the council’s feedback pages give all the reasons so no need to repeat them here. But the general point I would like to make is that people are incredibly sceptical about the way the council goes about drawing up plans and treats consultation exercises.

    Any proposal like this should include options. We know they must have been considered. Why are they not discussed? Where is the data, the evidence that this plan will improve anything? Has anyone analysed the impacts of, for example, cutting off Jesmond from the North? If not, why not? If so, let’s see it.

    A curtailed consultation process, sneaked in during the summer holidays, with a single option. Based on past consultations there is a strong feeling that people’s views will just be ignored. The council has made its mind up and will do what it wants. This must not be permitted. If the proposals go ahead when thousands of people have signed petitions and left such a strong body of negative feedback then there can be no point in ever having any consultations ever again.

    I would like to see much more transparency:
    – how were these proposals arrived at? Where is the evidence/analysis supporting them?
    – what other options were considered and why are they not included?
    – what was the process for coming up with this ‘preferred’ solution
    – what will happen to all this feedback? How will it be taken into account? I want evidence that the consultation is being taken seriously and has value. If not the council is in dereliction of its duty.

    Please please do whatever you can to prevent this shady imposition of a scheme which will devastate the area and achieve nothing.

  14. Josephine Ellis

    Dear Chi, I’m really pleased you’ve taken up this cause. The proposals are awful and outdated. They’re designed with a 1970s mentality – nothing else matters as long as you can shave a minute or two off someone’s car journey. Not the national and global environment, not pedestrians and cyclists, not picturesque views, not social equity, not the integrity of the city as a whole. I’m really angry and appalled by them.

  15. J. L. Cockton

    You have asked for comments on the council proposals for Blue House Roundabout. As a chartered engineer with 37 years’ experience in highway engineering, albeit now retired, I am at a complete loss to understand how this solution was arrived at.

    An anonymous quote gives a definition of an engineer as “a man who can do for a dime what any fool can do for a dollar”. Regrettably I think this proposal is a long way away from the dime end of this definition.

    In February 2013, a report was published by WSP titled “Newcastle City Council: Pinchpoint Application Fund Bid Supporting Information – Blue House Roundabout Improvements. This report provided a well evidenced analysis of the existing problems at Blue House junction and proposed a solution based on traffic signals, local widening and toucan crossings. This report can still be found on the Newcastle City Council website at :-…/ncc_blue_house_pinch_point_report.pdf.
    Whilst I personally dislike the signalisation proposal, it has at least been produced as a result of extensive traffic modelling and analysis.

    The council claim that “The existing junction layout has been in place for decades and is one of the worst in the city for injuries to people caused by all road traffic collisions. It is the second worst in the city for injuries to people on bikes.” Whilst this statement may well be factually incorrect, it does not reveal the numbers behind the claim.

    Based on data from the figures for the last 10 years result in an average annual rate of 11.1, with averages of 0 fatal; 0.6 serious and 10.5 slight. The WSP report noted that “The collision rate at the junction was regarded as significantly higher than the national average for an urban corridor of this length. The high accident rate at the junction further re-enforces the perception of an unsafe junction particularly for pedestrians and cyclists (although pedestrian and cycle collisions were fairly low at 3 out of a total of 32 over the three year study period).”

    There are better pedestrian and cyclist routes which take you away from the Great North road and its associated traffic fumes, one of which crosses the Town Moor itself. Admittedly these lie at some distance from the Blue House roundabout, but for anyone walking or cycling from Gosforth to the town centre the overall increases in distance covered are not significant.

    I would be very interested to know how, in a little over 3 years, things have changed so much as to justify the new ‘supersized’ roundabout. There is no significant documentation (of a quality similar to the 2013 report) on the public sections of the NCC website which details any such changes. Indeed the only document available is the scoping study for the required Environmental Impact Assessment, which is dated July 2016, and this does not provide anywhere near enough justification for the removal of the areas of moor required for the scheme.

    I am also concerned that in one of the reports, reference is made to a land exchange using council open space in Kenton. The only open space contiguous with the Town Moor (which based on their website, I assume the Freeman would require as a condition) currently includes Kenton Dene, which is currently used to provide the only parkland/public open space in the Kenton area. This extends the potential impacts to areas well outside the immediate Northern access corridor o which the scheme focuses

    The WSP report also identifies that the Blue House proposals form part of a scheme which covers Jesmond Dene Road/Osborne road junction and Haddrick’s Mill roundabout.

    The council consultation site treats the 3 sites separately and as a result leads to split comments and approval ratings. I would also add that the website design does not draw sufficient attention to the ‘slider’ used to register approval/disapproval. Intentional or not, I feel this leads to under-recording of the level of disapproval of all three schemes.

    As a final note, the public exhibitions have been poorly organised, with limited information made available, and attended only by NCC public engagement staff, who have no technical knowledge of the proposals and could not answer any technical questions.
    Notes were not taken by the staff, and no comment forms were available at the exhibition I attended, with only the website available for comments.

    The lack of readily available information and use of the website only approach effectively disenfranchises those people who either have no access or are not happy with using computers and the internet. This is further compounded by the dates chosen for the consultation when many people are on holiday and the narrow window for comments, preventing a reasoned response from anyone.

    1. J. L. Cockton

      Sorry, but I forgot to include in my long screed above that based on drawing title blocks and report covers, a significant amount of the input to this scheme has been carried out in offices remote from Newcastle. Whilst I can heartily endorse the ‘fresh pair of eyes’ approach to problems, I also feel that some local knowledge and experience of travelling (by all modes) around the project area is essential to providing a proposal acceptable to the electorate at large.

  16. Geoff Norris

    Too late now for your meeting with the Council. I have lived in the city for 30 years and have used the blue house roundabout almost daily during that period as a car driver, bus user and cyclist. I would like to say how pleased i am that you are taking this issue up. i share many of the views expressed in previous comments: i can support the Haddricks Mill proposal but the proposals for the Blue House roundabout are unacceptable as they stand. The new roundabout would have a significant visual and environmental impact but the benefits can be largely achieved by the much more limited proposal published in 2013 (traffic lights, and marginal changes to layout at the existing roundabout) which has very little damaging impact. My other concern is that to the extent that a major new roundabout is successful in reducing congestion the impact will be increased traffic else where in the system; i.e. more traffic on Gosforth High street and to the north of Gosforth. We should be encouraging modal shift away from private car use.
    I am also very concerned about the way in which this proposal has been developed. There is no report on the council website which explains and justifies the shift from the 2013 proposal to the current one, there are no published statistics (apart from those in the 2013 report) which show accident rates, injuries incurred, congestion levels and traffic flow and no attempt to offer an explanation of the impact this proposal or its predecessor will have on these levels. The consultation process is itself seriously flawed. We do not appear to be being consulted on the alternative options for the Blue House; merely being asked to look at the detail of the proposal for tinkering. The previous stage of the process which developed the current proposal involved consultation with key stakeholders but I am unable to discover who these stakeholders are but I am clear the the local community who live near the proposed new roundabout was not included in the list of stakeholders.

  17. JPaul Timney

    Hiya Chi, I live in Westerhope area, and travel daily to the City Centre , The NEW Cowgate JUNCTION (ex roundabout ) is NOW running smoothly, and is much easier and safer to use . With the new cycle lanes , pedestrian crossings and footpaths, new lighting and landscaping , The area is Camera Controlled. and it is much nicer and safer both for traffic AND pedestrians. Take a look at it .? Paul.

  18. Ian Campbell

    I welcome your involvement in NCC’s badly flawed plans for these junctions. Too big, too expensive, too complex and will create at least as many problems as they resolve. Residential area need usable roads not epic imposed fantasy proposals that don’t fix anything and which no stakeholders support

  19. Barry Keatings

    Hello Chi
    I enclose a copy of my attempted protest on the commonplace site, which mysteriously failed to upload.

    The gist of the overwhelmingly (not ‘mostly’) negative responses is that the single BHR proposal we have been abruptly presented with, is utterly rejected by motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and residents. That is to say ALL parties that the proposal purports to address. This is, indeed, cultural vandalism.
    It’s just possible to conceive how NCC’s consultants, the Leeds office of the Los Angeles-based Aecom, who do giant infrastructure projects, could pull a standard, massive urban giro system out of their database. This without having any knowledge or feeling for the area’s history and culture, as well as our pride in our much-envied green space, so close to the city centre.
    But wait – we have our local councillor and Cabinet Member for Investment and Development, Ged Bell, and NCC’s Graham Grant, head of Transport Investment ……they’re going to know that something designed abstractly on paper somewhere is not going to work for this unique area…..well, it would seem not. How these supposed servants of the city’s residents can be so jarringly out of sync with local opinion is lamentable, risible, embarrassing and worrying, all at the same time. Also, in a week where the Times reports the Ford Motor co. announcement that “self-driving cars without steering wheels or pedals will roll onto the roads by 2021”, it is clear that our ‘servants’ are stuck in a previous century.
    Furthermore, if it is the case that Councillor Bell said on BBC Radio that the proposed new roundabout was a result of “the choices people have made”, then the responses on this site demonstrably refute this.

    I agree with a previous contributor – It is a complete nonsense to talk of enhanced green spaces in the middle of the roundabout – it is the centre of a roundabout.
    Even leaving aside the traffic efficacy of the Salters Road and Cowgate redevelopments, which many have commented adversely on, the ‘landscaping’ is pathetic.
    The former has 2 weedy saplings, no shrub planted areas and a mass of tarmac and iron bollards/railings. Cowgate has no trees and just 2 plant troughs. Oh and multiple, garish, green triangles (astroturf?) that look nothing like grass – an absurd environmental platitude.
    So that’s what we’d have in store for the vastly bigger ‘enhanced green spaces’ of the proposed Blue House roundabout.
    Even if one is charitable enough to only classify the BHR scheme as ‘ill-conceived’, the proposal to close this right turn is just outright incompetence. Many before me have documented the whole rat-run scenario involving Forsythe and Clayton side roads, as well as other safety and environmental considerations. This closure demonstrates a maniacal zeal to ensure a rapid ‘Northern Access Corridor’ regardless of the local impact.

    How could this be improved?
    There is a plethora of well-considered ideas previously posted on this site based around modest revisions to the current site. The Blue House could definitely be demolished or re-sited. Separate cycle and footpaths could go inside the tree lines in the moors, only using small strips of land from the edges. This would free-up space to enhance the lanes leading into the roundabout. This would improve safety for cyclists/pedestrians, but as many have pointed out the traffic pinch points are just moved a little further down the road!
    Regarding what should happen from here, I am in total agreement with a view previously expressed:
    The council have asked for opinions and they have received them – there is simply nothing in this proposal that people want. It’s been suggested that the council will review these responses and come back with a “revised proposal” in mid-September. This is simply unacceptable. The strength of opposition is so strong, and the nature of this opposition is so engaged and constructive, that the council must simply change their whole approach, consign this proposal to the dustbin, and engage constructively and openly with the local community to discuss what sort of a city we want to live in and what impact this might have on local communities and infrastructure.

  20. Jen Stephenson

    I am writing to voice my disagreement with the plans being out forward to change Blue House Roundabout.
    I have to use this roundabout in my car at least twice at day, at peak times and am never waiting more then two minutes at any time. The traffic continually flows slowly but steadily. The bottle necks are at Gosforth High Street, Haddricks Mill roundabout and going into the city centre – changing the roundabout will do nothing to reduce these problems. I am a recreational cyclist and do not have a problem with getting across this roundabout

    The cutting down of trees is a terrible thing to think of in these days of climate change. I thought that Goverments and councils were meant to be helping the environment not destroying it.

    I walk round this area several times a day with my dog and see people of all ages using the moor for recreational purposes, I see all ages using it for such activities as running,football,playing rounders, learning how to ride bikes,children running, pensioners walking,kite flying, outdoor keep fit classes,American football,socialising,rugby, dog walking to name but a few. I am also certain the the allotment owners do not want more car fumes nearer to them.

    I do not feel that, considering the thousands of vehicles that use the roundabout every day the accident rate is extremely low and so cannot be used as a reason for changing this.

    The money that this would cost needs to be used in other areas and in my view is an unnecessary waste of tax payers funds.

    I have not found anyone who thinks that this is a sound proposal based on good planning.

    I am also very disappointed that the council has put out these plans and consultation period during the summer holidays when a great deal of residents will be away on holidays.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.