A discussion paper about traffic management in Penrith town centre has stuck a nerve with many residents.
The document, produced by community group Penrith Futures Partnership and reported in the Herald, has sparked vocal engagement.
Titled “Optimal Use of Shared Public Spaces”, the paper explored the hot topic of traffic management in the town’s centre. The group says its aim is to generate a “constructive discussion” about striking a balance between creating a pleasant environment for pedestrians and appropriate levels of access for vehicles.
Speaking this week, group member Dave Knaggs said: “We produce these discussion papers with the motive of inspiring people to address concerns, to think about solutions and to solve problems.
“In doing so, we provide relevant facts, good quality and reliable information and contemporary research. Without this, the process of reaching conclusions is akin to playing snooker blindfolded.”
The comments and suggestions prompted by this latest paper have tended to fall into three distinct groups: Those who support change; those who are against change; and those who want carefully managed change to enhance and improve the town centre. The partnership is keen to emphasise that a careful read of the paper shows that, rather than making proposals, it highlights the issues, obstacles, challenges and potential solutions for progress to be made. It acknowledges that the problems of parking, access and traffic flow must be given very careful consideration.
The paper contends that the current volume of traffic in the town centre makes it “a walk on the wild side” for pedestrians and says it is “incompatible with a healthy environment or a pleasant and relaxing place to linger and enjoy”.
Among those joining the conversation was Peter B. Armstrong (Herald letters, 11th March), who pointed out the town has been grappling to solve traffic problems since the 1930s.
Richard Utting, of the Partnership, said: “Those who didn’t read the paper may have been left with the impression that the group is favouring a wholesale pedestrianisation of the town centre. However, it explores the issues of traffic management and possible remedies including models of permanent traffic-free zones, time-limited traffic-free zones, temporary traffic-free zones and limiting which vehicles are allowed to access the town centre. It does not make any specific proposal.”
Over the last couple of years, the Partnership has produced a series of discussion documents to engage as many people as possible in thinking about a regeneration strategy for Penrith town centre. Their aim is to play a role in aiding Penrith to become “even more of a happy, thriving place with excellent facilities and amenities, a fantastic place to live and work and a destination of choice for visitors”.
Feedback from residents on their range of discussion papers has led the Partnership to conclude that most people would like to see a market returned to the town; the promotion of a clear identity based on Penrith’s rich history and heritage; the local control and development of important assets such as Castle Park; and support for the development of arts and culture activity. Richard added: “There is a broad recognition that Penrith urgently needs a bold and visionary plan to regenerate and revitalise the town and to halt the decline of our town centre”.
Dave said: “What too often happens is that a new government funding stream is announced that sparks us into action to conjure projects to chase the money. This leads to incoherent and piecemeal development and, like the recent Levelling Up bid, too often fails to secure the funding. Instead, we should be creating a comprehensive plan then rigorously pursuing funding to make it happen — not the other way around.”
What next?
Partnership members say that, until the issues highlighted in the various papers are addressed and positive regeneration begins, they need to broaden the debate and increase engagement, especially with the younger generation.
Member Hilary Snell said: “The Partnership believes that, to achieve positive change we must all talk to each other, listen attentively, debate respectively, and be open to fresh ideas and positive thinking whilst avoiding blinkered perspectives, polarised views and urges to negatively dismiss the opportunity to helpfully contribute to a big conversation in search of broad consensus.”
Former Penrith mayor Scott Jackson believes: “Change should always be a subject for discussion and the result of honest decision-making that commands as much support as possible. However, where the issue of decline meets apathy or reluctance to make the hard decisions necessary to address it, our prosperity can suffer.”
The Partnership has floated the idea of a Citizens’ Assembly model (as has been used in Kendal) which starts by providing participants with the opportunity to learn about the issues. This is followed by processes of deliberation which lead to decision-making and recommendations.
“This approach enables people to burst out of the constraints of social media bubbles which can lead to only encountering others with the same opinions and beliefs and which amplify or reinforce their pre-existing beliefs,” said a group spokesman.
Anyone wishing to positively engage with the consensus building approaches of the Penrith Futures Partnership is encouraged to join the Facebook page at www.facebook.com/groups/penrithfuturespartnership
