2. COLLATED RESPONSES TO THE PARK ENTRANCE SURVEY:-

The questions below are as posed. The Survey closed with 78 replies having been received and the percentage results given below are based on this total number.

Q1. The various entrances to Ponteland Park are not presently marked, although many have signboards. Do you favour making a formal entrance at the site of the existing path from Main Street, adjacent to the Somerfield Store ?

4%

52%

0%

44%

Q2. If you have answered 1b, do you consider the proposed design to be appropriate ?

1%

31%

24%

Q3. And, regarding the specified materials, do you favour brickwork "to match local brickwork"?

7%

10%

58%

(68%)

Q4. And, would you prefer the use of low sandstone walls to match existing walls opposite ?

51%

18%

Q5. are you in favour of the proposed paving? With text as suggested?

27%

14%

26%

Q6. , do you favour the use of iron railings, as proposed? Or some alternative?

12%

59%

18%

77%

Q7. you favour the idea of a new wooden bus shelter "Nearer to Darras Road"?

1%

18%

67%

44%

99%

3. COMMENTS RECEIVED WITH SURVEY RETURNS:-

The comments have been reproduced verbatim in order to avoid the need to summarise them, which could lead to a biassed account. they are given anonymously and in random order; they are not repeats of comments already made on other occasions.

1) Pons Aelli is wrongly attributed to Ponteland. This was the Roman name for Newcastle.[N.B. This was one of the suggested engravings on the entrance paving.]

2) Pillars are shown about 10' high; I would prefer sandstone no more than 5' high with a square capstone and no sphere. A sphere would be too easy to vandalise. The seating shown is superfluous -- a low sandstone wall would provide good seating.

3) Whatever is proposed should have a design for a rural, not an urban, setting.

4) The entrance proposed is not in keeping with Ponteland and is more like the gates of new "palaces" on Darras Hall. I would like an improved entrance with a new bus shelter stone-built to match the one on the other side of the road - much better than moving the bus shelter. Wood will quickly be destroyed by vandals. Perhaps we could have a landscaped entrance with wrought-iron panels? The Design Brief is wrong and needs to be revised to reflect more what the public wish rather than the "Town Council's" opinions.

5) Piers with "ovoids" on top - more prosaically known as a stone or concrete ball - are a bit "old hat". Our general view is that the whole concept is ostentatious and totally out of character - as if designed for a formal stately-home-type last-century garden.

6) The design as illustrated is too modern. It should as near as possible blend into the existing stonework of the village.

7) Would like it (this entrance) made more presentable - not necessary to have a large sign - it would be out of place.

8) My late husband was the Architect for ******* County Council. This design would have him turning in his grave.

9) We would suggest any formal entrance should be on West Road, opposite the Catholic Church, where it leads directly into the Park.

10) (This proposed entrance is) Anonymous!

11) Prefer to leave the Park as it is. If wood and glass are used for a new shelter, it won't last long! I would like the whole village cleaned up instead.

12) No special entrance - just tidy up the existing one. Proposed entrance is just like a big town. A bus shelter similar to the existing one in stone by the Pele Tower would be more in keeping with a village setting.

13) The proposed design is totally inappropriate. Possibly the use of natural boundaries/materials would be more suitable, e.g. hedging and/or an informal flower bed.

14) A formal brick and railing entrance is not in keeping with the village. A more natural landscaped entrance would look much better.

15) Keep the entrance open and informal. Do not use walls or railings to enclose space. Tidy up landscaping - remove self-seeded trees and plant more appropriate shrubs and specimen trees at perimeter. Opening up space and removing self-sown trees would allow grass to grow properly.

Leave bus shelter but tidy it up. Ref. 5c. - use an informal path surface. Ref. 6c. - leave open - enclosure is inappropriate.

16) I do not like the proposed entrance at all - a more open and natural look would be better, but with a stone bus shelter rather than a modern look. Keeping the entrance and the whole park free of litter would be a great improvement. More litter bins and regular emptying!

17) Keep the entrance a open as possible, with minimal railings to stop young children running straight from the park into the road. A "Clear" bus shelter would be the least obtrusive.

18) 1 would prefer (Q. 2c) something more in keeping with a rural area. Please try to maintain Ponteland as a semi-rural area and not turn it into a "Town". A bypass is long overdue. When was the last Traffic Census done?

19) Balls on top of pillars are a sure target for vandalism. Bricks in the village are not all local; many were imported as ballast in coal ships.

20) I would prefer (Q.6c) a hedge.

21) The proposals are not in keeping with the present surroundings.

22) Ordinary field-type gates would be adequate and fit in with the rural aspect of the village.

23) The issue of vandal-proofing is extremely important, as shown by the easy vandalising of the bus-shelter near Broadway, dog mess bins and litter bins. It is nearly always false economy to buy cheap models which subsequently have to be replaced by vandal-proof ones.

24) No brick piers or walls; in case of mismatching they would be too dominant. Just railings and stone bus shelter to match the Pele Tower one. Paving to entrance should be stone with suitable wording to follow in a line, thus leading people in.

25) My views still the same - out of keeping. Entrance incorporating a new bus shelter similar to the stone one opposite with a grass approach to the Park as suggested by John Hague would be a better solution.

26) Would like to see a more modern but rustic design that blends with the colours of the Park.

27) This "Entrance location does not afford a direct access to the recreation area of the Park. The proposed brick, stone and iron construction is similar to new boundaries despoiling Darras Hall - a simple rural fence or hedge is adequate.

28) An "ego-trip".

29) For a village park it is only necessary to recess and widen the entrance with a curved hedge or low stone wall either side of the opening.

30) For safety maybe a stone bus shelter could incorporate some form of window each end. Has the area round the comer by the substation been taken into consideration?

31) Low stone walls could be used as seating. Nothing elaborate which could act as a barrier between the street and Park. We want to encourage people.

32) Are we being urbanised in preparation for being a Town?

33) We did not favour a change in the present simple entrance. The money could be spent more usefully in clearing up the river. Even if money were no object, we prefer the present entrance.

34) We think the proposed design is far too formal and grandiose; totally out of keeping with the rest of the village and the informal character of the Park. This area certainly needs tidying up, but this proposal is not the answer.

35) The proposed design is too formal and oppressive - such railings are usually for restricting access - or escape! We see no need for gateposts. A low stone wall, curved rather than angled, would be in keeping with the semi-rural location and could incorporate seating and plant containers.

36) I would prefer an entrance, but one in stone in keeping with other buildings in the area. Hedges up the area would be better than railings, and a bus shelter of the same stone would give an overall planned effect.