Case Study 1: Felton Ave. – Aln Crescent Underpass

The problem:

The plan above shows the existing path under the Metro line between Aln Crescent and Felton Avenue. Even though this is the only pedestrian route between the northern and southern part of the area, I’ve always felt it’s problematic for the following reasons:

• The path is dark and turns sharply, and passes through a narrow gap between two sets of garages.
• There is no line of sight from one area into the next meaning anyone could be waiting around the corner without you realising.
• The spaces both under the metro bridge and around the garages are quiet, secluded, poorly lit and have no natural surveillance from neighbouring properties.
• The area is poorly maintained and suffers from graffiti, littering, anti-social behaviour and vandalism.

All the above issues make this area feel unsafe and unwelcoming. Improvements would be needed if more people are going to feel confident using this path regularly.
As the only north-south access across the tracks between Wansbeck Road and Fawdon Metro stations, improvements to this link would likely be of significant benefit to local people.

A few suggestions:

So, what could be done to deal with the above problems? Here are just a few suggestions.

First: Open up the space

1. Remove the three garages on their own (red outline). This would allow what is currently a dark, narrow and unsafe path under the metro line (green dotted line) to be opened up. Doing this would significantly improve pedestrian and cycle links between Felton Ave. and Aln Crescent.
2. Remove the other nine garages (blue outline) to further open up the area. If it were possible for a small strip of garden (purple) to also be purchased (or alternative land could be given in compensation) it would give more space to build proper road access (though I don’t think this is essential). The land (yellow) could then be made available for development.
3. Replace garages with surface car parking. Removal of the garages will no doubt raise concerns about loss of parking, but garages take up a lot of space, require maintenance, attract vandalism and only provide exclusive parking for just a handful of cars. The amount of car parking could actually be increased and the other issues dealt with by replacing garages with marked bays.

Next: Build some houses

The empty land could then be developed with three or four detached or semi-detached houses, or even flats if higher density development was more in demand.

But why build houses instead of just leaving the land as it is?

1. At present it is fenced off, inaccessible and unused; it is waste land. It neither benefits the school next door nor does it provide any amenity to local residents. Maintenance of such land is an unnecessary drain on council resources and wasteful use of space.
2. A small infill housing development here would provide additional stock in an established residential area with very good transport links and local amenities. While this would only provide a small number of new houses, if it was part of a policy of actively developing such ‘leftover’ parcels of land across the city, cumulatively they could go some way towards meeting housing targets while reducing pressure to develop on greenbelt land.
3. It would mean this area is better used and would provide passive surveillance to what is currently dead space that attracts antisocial behaviour due to its secluded location and poor maintenance.
4. Housing here would benefit existing residents and anyone using the route under the Metro tracks as it would bring the space back into use, smarten the area up and discourage people from loitering there. It would further improve the feeling of safety and encourage more people to use this route.
5. There is already precedent for demolition and redevelopment of garages in the area (though admittedly not ones owned by the council). On 30 Aug 2016 planning permission was granted for the replacement of 11 garages on nearby Carrfield Rd. (2016/1035/01/DET) with 3 No. 3 bed dwellings. The area of the site on Carrfield Rd. is approx. 406m2; by contrast the site proposed above is approx. 1020m2 and so could potentially even support more, or possibly bigger family homes.
6. If the land is council owned, sale or lease of it to a developer would provide money which could be ring fenced for re-investment in the local area. Some of this could go towards improvements to the immediate surroundings (e.g. resurfacing, better lighting and smartening up this and other nearby footpaths). Any additional money could go into a pot to be invested in larger local projects that will require funding from a number of sources, such as accessibility improvements to the nearby Wansbeck Road Metro station.

• 

• 

• 

•