DOCSLIB.ORG

Representor Ref 174 This Submission Relates to Representation Number 395, 397, 707, 710, 711

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Representor Ref 174 This Submission Relates to Representation Number 395, 397, 707, 710, 711 Matter 2- Vision and Objectives (Chapter 1) Will French BSc, MCD, MBA, MRTPI, Representor Ref 174 This Submission relates to Representation Number 395, 397, 707, 710, 711 1. Are the Vision and Strategic Objectives soundly based and appropriate for this Borough, consistent with national policies, reflecting community views and locally distinctive, and do they provide a sound basis for the overall spatial strategy and strategic policies in the Core Strategy? Response. This question raises many similar concerns as those raised in Matter 1, Our response is much the same as our response then, and the Inspector is referred to it. In addition the Key Map (Map 2) has been prepared to provide a diagrammatic interpretation of the strategy as it applies in the Borough overall. Two points need to be made in relation to it: • The two development corridors are depicted using an extremely broad brush. Almost the entire borough is included in the two corridors but some locations are excluded even though they have very good access to public transport (South Acton, and Greenford) or to the A4/M4 corridor (South Ealing and Norwood). These areas are at least as accessible as some of the locations within the two development corridors which the final paragraph on page 12 suggests provide the criteria for channelling development into them. • On the other hand, the corridors that Map 2 identifies are extremely important in understanding the Borough’s underlying geography – the way that it works economically and socially. It highlights Ealing’s very strong east-west corridors and the weakness of its north-south linkages. This becomes even more apparent if the A4/M4 corridor to the south is considered which, while outside the Borough, is very important to it. I described this underlying spatial structure right at the start of the plan preparation process, Annex 1) and I continue to suggest it as a far more useful underpinning for the Spatial Vision than that presented the Strategy now proposed. 2. Is the Spatial Vision (policy 1.1) soundly based, effective and deliverable, appropriate for the Borough, supported by robust and credible evidence, and consistent with national policy? Response. Again, many of our concerns have been previously described and the Inspector is referred to our response to Matter 1. Other matters specifically related are these: • Policy 1.1 has one big idea which is expressed in (b) – to concentrate new development primarily along the Uxbridge Road but also along the A40. The other elements of this Policy ie (a) and (c) to (k) are not spatial policies at all – November 2011. Ealing LDF Examination: Matter 2- Vision and Objectives 1 they relate instead to the kind of aspirations which are set out in the Sustainable community strategy or to the sort of Issues that preparation of the Strategy should have explored spatial solutions to. • Of particular concern is Policy 1.1(c) – the commitment to protecting industrial and warehousing uses in the Borough. As I commented more fully in my response to the study by Roger Tym and partners on employment land use there is no justification for protecting warehousing in a Borough like Ealing which is already intensively developed and congested. By its nature, warehousing is low value adding and employs few people. It is also heavily traffic generating. The proper locations for such distribution uses should be in locations that have easier access to the national transport network ie around the M25. Much of the warehousing land in Ealing is Park Royal where it is under-utilised and could be released for higher value and more intensive purposes – including for instance the sort of major residential use proposed by Sir peter Hall. • Policy 1.1(h) also needs to be considered. This policy is worthless in the way that it is written, because unlike, for instance Policies 1.1(a) and (b) it is entirely unspecific in its wording such so that in practice it will carry very little weight. Adding insult to injury the reference to the Development Management DPD - a document that is at a far earlier stage of its preparation than the Strategy and even when approved will carry les weight than this Core Strategy document. 3. Is a vision based on transport improvements proposed in the two corridors deliverable if the schemes do not materialise and are the proposed improvements to transport capacity and quality east-west and north-south deliverable? and 4. For the transport strategy to be justified should there be specific reference to the Mayor’s London Transport Strategy. Response. The Borough is very strongly structured around its excellent east-west transport linkages which, sooner or later are now destined to be improved through the opening of Crossrail. The timing of Crossrail may be uncertain but the scheme is now sufficiently well advanced for it to be reasonably certain it will be delivered. Far less certain are any improvements to strengthening north-south or orbital routes which must now be deemed as the Borough’s priority in terms of its transport planning. Achieving significant improvements will depend very largely on the Mayor and TfL, but the need for such routes and the importance to its (and West London’s) economic growth should be stated much more clearly than the Strategy does. This will help the Borough to make its case in discussions with regional bodies like the Mayor and TfL and with neighbouring authorities. And it will help add weight to initiatives being taken for new orbital routes such as by the West London Orbital scheme (Annex 2) and the Brent Cross Rail Proposals (Annex 3). It is unduly restrictive and quite unnecessary to restrict the policy (top of P9) to enhance north-south movements to the facilitation of regeneration. The benefits of improved connectivity in the West London sub-region promise many benefits beyond the rather woolly principles associated with regeneration. Some of these are described in Annex 3. November 2011. Ealing LDF Examination: Matter 2- Vision and Objectives 2 5. The introduction to policy 1.2 refers to including some agencies; to be effective all relevant agencies should be noted. Response. We agree with the Inspector, but suggest in addition that the Ealing Community, its residents and interest groups should also be mentioned in line with the Government’s localism agenda and its promotion of the Big Society. We say this not to score a point, but because it will better reflect the role of the Council and its planners as coordinators, and enablers of all those who live and work in the Borough whose enterprise and initiative can contribute more fully to the way it develops. 6. Does policy 1.2(b) accord with emerging National Policy, if not, is the policy justified? Response. As we pointed out in our response to the 2010 study into Employment and Land Use by Roger Tym and commissioned by the Council, commercial uses are of critical importance to the continuing role of Ealing Town centre as a major centre in West London. There has been a steady decline in office and other B1 uses over recent years which is impacting on business in Ealing. The aims behind Policy 1.2(b) could therefore be better served were there a stronger commitment here as well as in other sections of the Strategy to the role of Ealing town centre as a commercial centre and the heart of civic activities in the Borough. 7. Is the supporting paragraph to policy 1.2(b) ‘short term protection’ in the proposed changes implying that an alternative use is a sentence rather than an opportunity? Response. During the past 10 year explosion in house prices important small employment sites that played an essential role in the local economy and servicing the local community have been appropriated for housing. The wider costs to Ealing in terms of a loss of start-up premises, longer journeys by small traders and the loss to the community of small workshops has never been cost out. Policy 1.2(b) should include a provision that further loss of such units will normally be protected against. 8. Policy 1.2(f) provides for tall buildings in specific town centres, what is the justification for such development and how will the area for such buildings be controlled? There is no definition of what constitutes a tall building effectively. Response. No justification is given in the Plan for locating tall buildings in town centres, and as the policy is stated it will be very hard for the development management team to control them. The wording of 1.2(f) is so loose as to be useless because it can be interpreted in just about anyway anyone chooses. The contrast with the existing UDP policy on high buildings is much clearer – where Table 4B states that ‘buildings or structures which exceed 20m or 65ft in height or which are significantly higher than their surroundings will ... not generally be acceptable on sites ... within Conservation Areas.’ The Council has offered no explanation for departing from this approach. As the last November 2011. Ealing LDF Examination: Matter 2- Vision and Objectives 3 sentence on p23 affirms, the London Plan confirms that ‘it is important to acknowledge that higher density housing does not automatically equate to high-rise development. The fudging of the policy on tall buildings in the Strategy is extremely worrying and is likely to have a major bearing on the deliverability of the strategic plan. The plan is dependent on the assumption that new homes will be provided in places like central Ealing in tall buildings. This was implicitly acknowledged in the July 2010 Officers’ report to Cabinet on the Strategy which overturned the LDF Specialist Scrutiny Panel’s desire to ‘avoid an over-concentration of tall buildings in any one area’.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Property Guide – Welcome to Our Home!
    PROPERTY GUIDE – WELCOME TO OUR HOME! We hope you enjoy your stay here and enjoy what London has to offer. Keys/Access to the property 1 key for the building, 2 keys for flat door. First unlock the bottom lock with the big key, then the top lock with the smaller key. Please ensure you always shut all windows and lock the bottom lock on your way out. PLEASE BE CAREFUL NOT TO LOSE THE KEYS OR LOCK THEM IN THE PROPERTY. Particular requests and information about the Bright and spacious duplex apartment situated in a quiet property green area near a vibrant high street with a variety of shops, an abundance of cafes and restaurants with cuisines from all over the world, whilst only a short tube journey away from central London. Two double bedrooms, 2 x bathrooms (1 en-suite), separate guest WC. Lounge room with a 55 x inch smart TV with Netflix and high speed internet connection, separate kitchen (with a Nutribullet blender and a Nespresso coffee machine), dining room overlooking a well maintained shared garden, off street parking in a private driveway. A short walk from Hampstead Heath and Golders Hill park which houses a butterfly house, a zoo, a deer enclosure, a number of ponds and tennis courts. Basic House Rules No Smoking – No Pets Allowed – No Partying or Loud Noises Keep the place clean and tidy – no dirty dishes left over please Fee for lost key from £50 and £100 for smoking WIFI Network Name VM1655733 Password 8gdnthqDvwzx Where is the modem kept Behind the TV in the lounge room How the heating & hot water Central heating or other? Central heating system works How the TV system works Remote controlled, the home entertainment system manual is on (if applicable) the TV stand.
    [Show full text]
  • Crossrail Environmental Statement 8A
    Crossrail Environmental Statement Volume 8a Appendices Transport assessment: methodology and principal findings 8a If you would like information about Crossrail in your language, please contact Crossrail supplying your name and postal address and please state the language or format that you require. To request information about Crossrail contact details: in large print, Braille or audio cassette, Crossrail FREEPOST NAT6945 please contact Crossrail. London SW1H0BR Email: [email protected] Helpdesk: 0845 602 3813 (24-hours, 7-days a week) Crossrail Environmental Statement Volume 8A – Appendices Transport Assessment: Methodology and Principal Findings February 2005 This volume of the Transport Assessment Report is produced by Mott MacDonald – responsible for assessment of temporary impacts for the Central and Eastern route sections and for editing and co-ordination; Halcrow – responsible for assessment of permanent impacts route-wide; Scott Wilson – responsible for assessment of temporary impacts for the Western route section; and Faber Maunsell – responsible for assessment of temporary and permanent impacts in the Tottenham Court Road East station area, … working with the Crossrail Planning Team. Mott MacDonald St Anne House, 20–26 Wellesley Road, Croydon, Surrey CR9 2UL, United Kingdom www.mottmac.com Halcrow Group Limited Vineyard House, 44 Brook Green, Hammersmith, London W6 7BY, United Kingdom www.halcrow.com Scott Wilson 8 Greencoat Place, London SW1P 1PL, United Kingdom This document has been prepared for the titled project or named part thereof and should not be relied upon or used for any other project without an independent check being carried out as to its suitability and prior written authority of Mott MacDonald, Halcrow, Scott www.scottwilson.com Wilson and Faber Maunsell being obtained.
    [Show full text]
  • Brent Cross Cricklewood in the London Borough of Barnet
    planning report PDU/1483/02 12 March 2010 Brent Cross Cricklewood in the London Borough of Barnet planning application no. C/17559/08 Strategic planning application stage II referral (old powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000 The proposal Outline application for comprehensive mixed use redevelopment of the Brent Cross Cricklewood regeneration area comprising residential, town centre uses including retail, leisure, hotel and conference facilities, offices, industrial and other business uses, rail-based freight facilities, waste handling facility, petrol filling station, community, health and education facilities, private hospital, open space and public realm, landscaping and recreation facilities, new rail and bus stations, vehicular and pedestrian bridges, underground and multi-storey car parking, works to the River Brent and Clitterhouse Stream and associated infrastructure, demolition and alterations of existing building structures, electricity generation stations, relocated electricity substation, free standing or building mounted wind turbines, alterations to existing railway infrastructure including Cricklewood railway track and station and Brent Cross London Underground station, creation of new strategic accesses and internal road layout, at grade or underground conveyor from waste handling facility to combined heat and power plant, infrastructure and associated facilities together with any required temporary works or structures and associated utilities/services required by the development. The applicant The applicants are Hammerson, Standard Life Investments and Brookfield Europe (“the Brent Cross Development Partners”), and the architect is Allies & Morrison Architects. Strategic issues Outstanding issues relating to retail, affordable housing, urban design and inclusive access, transport, waste, energy, noise, phasing and infrastructure triggers have been addressed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Basics of Concession Contracts
    Designing Transit Concession Contracts to Deal with Uncertainty by MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE Tara Naomi Chin Blakey OF TECHNOLOGY B.S., Civil Engineering (2004) ARE62009 University of Florida LIBRARIES Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Transportation at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June 2006 ©2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved Signature of Author............ ... Civil and Environmental Engineering May 26, 2006 Certified by.......................... ............ Prof Nigel H. M. Wilson Professor of Civil aid Environmental Engineering - The1 is Supervisor Accepted by.............................................. And? 4. Whittle Chairman, Department Committee on Graduate Studies 1 BARKER Designing Transit Concession Contracts to Deal with Uncertainty By Tara Naomi Chin Blakey Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering On May 25, 2006 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Transportation ABSTRACT This thesis proposes a performance regime structure for public transit concession contracts, designed so incentives to the concessionaire can be effective given significant uncertainty about the future operating conditions. This is intended to aid agencies in designing regimes that will encourage continually improving performance through the use of relevant and adaptive incentives. The proposed incentives are adjusted annually based on actual circumstances. An adaptive regime can also allow the incentives to be more cost and resource efficient and is especially well-suited to so-called "gross-cost" contracts when the public agency retains the fare revenue and absorbs the revenue risk for the services. The motivation for this research is the anticipated transfer of the oversight responsibilities for the Silverlink Metro regional rail services, in outer London, from the UK Department for Transport to Transport for London.
    [Show full text]
  • West London Orbital Update PDF 513 KB
    West London Economic Prosperity Board 17th February 2021 Title West London Orbital (Standing Item) Report of Niall Bolger, LB Hounslow Status Public Urgent No Enclosures N/A Andrew Barry-Purssell, West London Planning Policy and Officer Contact Details Infrastructure Delivery Manager, West London Alliance, E: [email protected]; T: 07525 388237 Summary This report provides the Board with an update on work with Transport for London and Network Rail to develop the business case for the West London Orbital. It seeks approval for proposed arrangements for providing funding for the project from the resources secured from the Strategic Investment Pot and for governance arrangements reflecting the fact that the project is being jointly funded and delivered. Recommendations Leaders are asked to: i) NOTE progress in development of the business case for the WLO; ii) AGREE the proposed arrangements for funding the project from Strategic Investment Pot resources held by the West London Alliance; and iii) AGREE the arrangements for governance of the project, including establishment of a Partners Oversight Group 1. WHY THIS REPORT IS NEEDED 1.1 The WLEPB has consistently identified the West London Orbital (WLO) Overground rail line as a shared strategic priority for West London, integral to the sub-region’s sustainable development. The Board has agreed that progress and next steps relating to the WLO should be a standing item on its agenda. The West London Alliance (WLA) and West London boroughs have worked closely with Transport for London (TfL) and the Greater London Authority and Network Rail to develop and refine the business case for the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Crossrail 1 Corridor 6 (Richmond/Kingston/Norbiton) Proposal
    Crossrail 1 Corridor 6 (Richmond/Kingston/Norbiton) Proposal Response by London Borough of Hounslow February 2003 Crossrail 1 Corridor 6 (Richmond/Kingston/Norbiton) Proposal: Response by London Borough of Hounslow February 2003 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Context This submission constitutes the London Borough of Hounslow’s response to an invitation to provide initial comments on the Crossrail project’s proposal for a new corridor for Crossrail 1: Corridor 6 – Norbiton, via Old Oak Common, Acton, Chiswick, Richmond and Kingston. The submission considers the proposal in terms of service and amenity for the borough’s residents and businesses, and within the context of the Council’s published policies. In addition to the two options that constitute the Corridor 6 proposals, this submission provides two further options for Crossrail’s consideration. While the Council must record its disappointment that an effective period of less than two weeks was offered for preparation of this submission, the Council also wishes to record its appreciation for the assistance given by the Crossrail consultation team during the preparation of the submission. 1.2 Council Policies The London Borough of Hounslow Unitary Development Plan’s objectives relating to transport and land use development are summarised below: • To promote sustainable transport modes (walking, cycling, public and waterborne transport) which improves access for all members of the community and enhances public transport provision in London as a whole, while reducing car traffic and the demand for road space. • To encourage a pattern of land use, and provision of transport which minimises harm to the environment and reduces the need to travel, especially by car, whilst maximising development opportunities in the Borough.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Transport: the Future of Light Rail and Modern Trams in the United Kingdom
    House of Commons Transport Committee Integrated Transport: the Future of Light Rail and Modern Trams in the United Kingdom Tenth Report of Session 2004–05 Volume I Report, together with formal minutes Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 23 March 2005 HC 378-I Published on 3 April 2005 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £10.00 The Transport Committee The Transport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Transport and its associated public bodies. Current membership Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody MP (Labour, Crewe) (Chairman) Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson MP (Democratic Unionist, Lagan Valley) Mr Brian H. Donohoe MP (Labour, Cunninghame South) Clive Efford MP (Labour, Eltham) Mrs Louise Ellman MP (Labour/Co-operative, Liverpool Riverside) Ian Lucas MP (Labour, Wrexham) Miss Anne McIntosh MP (Conservative, Vale of York) Mr Paul Marsden MP (Liberal Democrat, Shrewsbury and Atcham) Mr John Randall MP (Conservative, Uxbridge) Mr George Stevenson MP (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South) Mr Graham Stringer MP (Labour, Manchester Blackley) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/transcom. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume.
    [Show full text]
  • LTS Modelling to Inform Work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy
    LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Prepared for Transport for London November 2001 Document Control Project Title: LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy MVA Project Number: C3895022 WP Reference: cmp\tm Directory & File Name: l:\london\lts\c8950.22\summary\mtsnote.doc Document Approval Primary Author: Richard Stanley Other Author(s): Reviewer(s): Paul Hanson (MVA) Henry Abraham (GLA) Issue Date Distribution Comments 1 16/11/01 THu, HAb, PHa First Draft for Review 2 23/11/01 THu, HAb Second Draft 3 26/11/01 HAb Published Version Contents Chapter Page 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Overview 1 1.2 Objectives of the Study 1 1.3 Structure of this Note 1 2 Modelling Approach 3 2.1 Background to the LTS Model 3 2.2 Modelling Goods Vehicles 5 2.3 Modelling Public Transport Reliability 5 2.4 Modelling Public Transport Crowding: LTS Crowding factors 5 2.5 PiXC as used in the Rail Industry 6 2.6 PiXC as used in the LTS model 7 3 Planning Data Assumptions 8 3.1 Introduction 8 3.2 B2.11 Borough Level Planning Data 8 4 Transport Network Assumptions 14 4.1 Scenarios 14 4.2 2001 Reference Case Scenario 14 4.3 2011 Reference Case Scenario 14 4.4 2011 Test MTS (Mayor's Transport Strategy) Package 16 4.5 2011 Test MTS Package - Road-Based Improvements 16 4.6 2011 Test MTS Package - Radial Rail Infrastructure Improvements 17 4.7 2011 Test MTS Package - Orbital Rail Infrastructure Improvements 17 4.8 2011 Test MTS Package - Underground Service Improvements 18 4.9 2011 Test MTS Package - DLR Improvements 19 4.10 2011
    [Show full text]
  • Tall Building Strategy
    Brent Tall Building Strategy Local Plan Evidence & Design Guidance March - 2020 Brent Tall Building Strategy Local Plan Evidence & Design Guidance March 2020 Contents 1. Introduction 3 2. Methodology 4 3. Tall building definition 5 4. Planning context 5 5. How tall and where? 9 6. Public transport accessibility 10 7. Building heights 13 8. Areas of search 15 9. Tall Building Zones 55 10. Design criteria 56 Wembley Park masterplan; a large cluster of tall buildings 2 Brent Tall Building Strategy - March 2020 1. Introduction development. More intensive, street-based, medium-rise development forms similar to Victorian terraces or Edwardian 1.1 This document is part of the evidence base for the Brent Local mansion blocks, can also work. These will have a role to play in Plan. It informs general and location specific policies on tall regenerating Brent. They cannot however support the higher buildings and has been informed by main areas identified for densities that tall buildings can achieve, which are required to meet development in the emerging Local Plan. Its purpose is to support the needs of predicted increases in population. the provision of tall buildings (10 storeys or more, or 30+ metres in height) in the most appropriate locations. 1.6 Some of Brent’s growth areas have seen a significant rise in the number of tall buildings. Wembley is the area where the largest 1.2 It also identifies what is expected for the borough to comply with change has occurred to date. In the right place, and with the right national and London policies in creating a tall building strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Response to the Mayor of London
    (APPENDIX TO KEY DECISION REPORT - ‘THE COUNCIL’S RESPONSE TO THE MAYOR OF LONDON’S DRAFT AMBIENT NOISE STRATEGY’) [Final text to be transferred onto Councillor Moylan’s letterhead] Ken Livingstone Esq Mayor of London (Ambient Noise Strategy Consultation) Greater London Authority FREEPOST 15799 LONDON SE1 2BR [First date after implementation period to be inserted] Dear Mr Livingstone The Royal Borough’s response to the draft London Ambient Noise Strategy Background noise caused by road traffic, trains, or low flying aircraft is part of daily life in central London, but in some parts of the Royal Borough, where noise levels are unduly high, it is a source of considerable annoyance to residents. In fact there are few parts of the Borough that do not suffer a certain amount of disturbance from busy roads, although in an overall sense this reflects vibrant activity, the ‘buzz’ that you yourself refer to. This Council welcomes a comprehensive approach to controlling background noise, whether from transport sources, or industrial and commercial operations. An action- orientated noise strategy for London, which prepares the way for the National Ambient Noise Strategy expected in 2007, should put London in a stronger position to influence the controls, such as noise limit values, eventually imposed by Government. We are very much in favour of proactive measures to reduce ambient noise levels that can be achieved without disproportionate costs, and that target the worst affected areas. The Royal Borough together with the London Boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham and Wandsworth, successfully negotiated a substantial noise mitigation scheme to offset the railway noise impact on line-side residents of Channel Tunnel trains using the West London Line.
    [Show full text]
  • Week 10 Monday 7 May All Day Transport
    Week 10 Monday 7 May all day Transport 29 Feb 2019 Respondent Number: 2145 (John Cox) Contents: (1) Comments on ‘Minor Suggested Change’ MSC.10.21 (2) Comments on Matter M76 ============================================= (1) ‘MINOR SUGGESTED CHANGE’ MSC.10.21 There is a ‘Minor Suggested Change’ MSC.10.21 in T3 Table 10.1, currently adding the wording: “London Overground Extension – West London Orbital” That wording is opposed, because it does not, as claimed, provide “Consistency with other GLA Strategies”. I suggest (given the need for enforced brevity in the table) new wording: “Infrastructure improvements on West London Orbital route, including for a London Overground Extension” Specific improvements on the WLO route are still being studied by the ‘West London Alliance’ of boroughs and by TfL - for instance, whether to fully electrify the route, remove existing level crossings, or replace and widen bridges. Nevertheless, there are certain to be significant infrastructure improvements, particularly on the northern section, the Dudding Hill freight line between LB Ealing at Old Oak Common, via LB Brent just south of Wembley, to LB Barnet at Brent Cross Cricklewood. One result of physical improvements is the chance to add completely new London Overground services. However, there are other benefits of this investment - the railway can more efficiently handle freight traffic (supporting policies SI8, SI10, and T7) and can provide a new passenger route for longer-distance, non-London Overground, south-east regional trains (supporting policy T1), stopping at London’s opportunity areas. The replacement wording above is more positively prepared and justified than the original, and more effectively based on joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities.
    [Show full text]
  • Aviation Strategy
    House of Commons Transport Committee Aviation Strategy First Report of Session 2013–14 Volume I HC 78-I House of Commons Transport Committee Aviation Strategy First Report of Session 2013–14 Volume I Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes. Oral and written evidence contained in Volume II and additional written evidence contained in Volume III are available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/transcom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 8 May 2013 HC 78-I Incorporating HC 765 i-vii, Session 2012-13 Published on 10 May 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £15.50 The Transport Committee The Transport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Transport and its Associate Public Bodies. Current membership Mrs Louise Ellman (Labour/Co-operative, Liverpool Riverside) (Chair) Steve Baker (Conservative, Wycombe) Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham) Jim Dobbin (Labour/Co-operative, Heywood and Middleton) Kwasi Kwarteng (Conservative, Spelthorne) Karen Lumley (Conservative, Redditch) Karl McCartney (Conservative, Lincoln) Lucy Powell (Labour/Co-operative, Manchester Central) Mr Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay) Iain Stewart (Conservative, Milton Keynes South) Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton) The following were also members of the committee during the Parliament. Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton), Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South), Mr Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South), Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West), Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North), Mr John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester Withington) Paul Maynard, (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys), Gavin Shuker (Labour/Co-operative, Luton South), Angela Smith (Labour, Penistone and Stocksbridge), Julian Sturdy (Conservative, York Outer) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152.
    [Show full text]