DOCSLIB.ORG

Policy SP BP2 - Chesham

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Policy SP BP2 - Chesham Policy SP BP2 - Chesham Person ID 1214824 Full Name Mr John Munns ID 5371 Order 236 Number 11.3 Title Policy SP BP2 - Chesham Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please Individual/Resident select the type of consultee: Date Received - Date 2016-12-12 Received: Duty to Cooperate Body - Is No this organisation a Duty to Cooperate Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details 8741 Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan©s ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-level upload - Please upload any supporting evidence Plan-Level: Duty to Co-operate - Do you consider the Local Plan to have met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate in accordance with section 110 of Localism Act 2011 and section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004? Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Co-operate is incapable of modification at examination Duty to Co-operate a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan has 8742 met/not met the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Attendance at the EiP - If your representation is proposing a modification(s), do you consider is necessary to participate at the examination in public? Attend EiPb - If you wish to participate at the examination in public, please outline why you consider this to be necessary (please be as precise and succinct as possible Policy Level - PP - If you do not believe this policy to be positively prepared please explain why PP Mods - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 1 - If you do not believe this policy to be justified please explain why Policy 2a - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 2 - If you do not believe this policy to be effective please explain why. PAa - Please specify as precisely and succinctly as possible how you would modify this policy to improve its alignment to this test of soundness. Policy 3 - If you do not I consider the Local Plan to be NOT legally compliant because in reading through the contents, I see that believe this policy in on many counts, the proposals are at odds with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and consistent with the National government directives, with regard to Green Belt Policy, and to areas protected by Green Belt status. I set Planning Policy Framework out my reasons as follows; Feb 2019 please explain why 1/ The proposals indicate with much emphasis, the intention of removing Green Belt designation from thirteen areas, and also the intention of removing or modifying Green Belt status of villages and hamlets in Chiltern District and South Bucks. Firstly, I question the confliction of interests concerning carbon emissions. The Local Plan forecasts a 21% increase in emissions; yet recently the government confirmed its aim to achieve zero emissions by 2050. It should be clear to all that increased vehicle use and higher volumes of traffic are major perpetrators of emissions growth. With this in mind, it should also be recognised with responsible concern, that a direct consequence of building housing developments on Green Belt land and in rural villages, by the nature of their location (generally out of town/rural), will be a wholesale increase in traffic volume, with the reliance on residents' vehicles travelling into (and returning from) surrounding towns for their needs. Awareness of these facts should add weight to the necessity when planning, for home-building to be where possible, within the proximity of town centres to minimise use of vehicles / traffic congestion. This ultimately reduces growth of emissions and poor air quality. However, there is little evidence in the local plan that suggests much consideration is given to options such as higher-density development of existing brown field sites, and for centralising developments within (or close to) town centres where possible. Chesham Renaissance CIC ( a community-led, non-profit) organisation has produced such a plan; `The Chesham Master plan' for mainly affordable homes to be built within the town centre, which also aims to regenerate the town in the process. 2/ With reference to the revision of Green Belt boundaries; 8743 The NPPF and government directives specify that local authorities must be able to demonstrate `exceptional circumstances' and fully explain why they are justified in any proposal to remove Green Belt designation of an area, or modify a Green Belt boundary. Any such proposal should only be put forward after ALL other possible options have been considered and exhausted. In addition, the NPPF (Paragraph 11B) require Plan Makers to provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, unless the application of Framework policies (including Green Belt) provide a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area.. Therefore, it must be recognised that both Chiltern District and South Bucks are responsible for areas which are covered predominantly by areas of AONB and Green Belt protection¼which together, impose a necessary restriction on development. With this situation, the Local Plan is at odds with the NPPF/Government directives, which renders it not legally compliant in its proposals. 3/ It is acknowledged that The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) associated with the Local Plan, has an infrastructure funding gap of between £179 m and £231 m. Provision of effective infrastructure would be crucial for the scale of developments proposed in the Local Plan before any plans could even be considered as sustainable. Therefore, this shortfall of available funding is another reason that renders the Local Plan as not legally compliant and unsound in its concept. I refer to Spatial Policy SP SP1 and Policy SP BP2 (Lye Green, Chesham). In particular, I draw attention to proposals which aim to remove Green Belt designation from areas within the Local Plan.. REF: POLICY SP SP1: The Councils have stated that release of some Green Belt is necessary as part of an overall three part strategy involving (1) focus on built-up areas, to build dwellings on previously developed land, (2) an exported proportion of housing need to go to the Aylesbury District and (3) through Green Belt releases where sustainable built area extensions can be achieved without unacceptably harming the purposes or integrity of the Green Belt. In relation to the 3 part strategy, I explain why I consider the Local Plan is unsound; (1) I question whether the council have paid due attention to identifying / exploring the potential of brown field sites/areas; particularly those close to, or within town centres. (2) I question whether the council are only in liaison with Aylesbury authority, and not with other authorities across a wider area, to possibly deliver a more dispersed spread for the delivery of housing. (3) Developments of such magnitude as those proposed in the Local Plan would no doubt create detrimental results if provided in Green Belt sites. In particular, the locations are generally away from town centres and on the periphery ± which will generate increased traffic congestion from more vehicle use, and ultimately an increase in emissions and poor air quality. Such developments would necessitate provision of new highway infrastructure to accommodate them; However, this may be prohibitive in both practical and financial terms. Furthermore, some essential purposes that Green Belt designation serves, will be either lost or undermined in the process of development if plans were to proceed in these areas. These are; · To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas · To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment · To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. With specific regard to Chesham; its local environment and topography, with its limited road infrastructure, does not lend itself to large development plans, due to the nature of its location, being surrounded largely by AONB, steep hills and narrow, winding roads which will not accommodate any necessary highways alterations to support the big increase in traffic that such large developments would create. As Chesham is in effect, a `basin', it is sensitive and susceptible to vehicle emissions being trapped in locations, such as the A416 Berkhamsted Road. This stretch already falls short of EU safe air levels, and thus, is a designated air quality management area, as a result. This is the main route through Chesham and it already bears the brunt of traffic regularly exceeding capacity level.
Load more

  1059
Copy Link
Recommended publications
  • The Evolution of Train Services on the Met and Gc Line
    THE EVOLUTION OF TRAIN SERVICES ON THE MET AND GC LINE by Eric Stuart (Readers may find reference to the Four-Tracking article in the July 2018 issue of Underground News helpful) After the Great Central (GC) arrived at Quainton Road and the service south thereof became established, both the GC and the Metropolitan Railway (Met.) provided services. However, the personalities at the heads of the two companies did not enjoy the best of relationships. Matters came to a head when a GC train crashed when failing to reduce speed over the (then) reverse curve into Aylesbury station in 1904. About that time, both the leaders retired and a period of better relations between the companies began. On 2 April 1906, the Metropolitan & Great Central Joint Railway (MGCJR) was created. This latter took over the lines of the Metropolitan Railway north and west of Harrow South Junction, with the exception of the branch to Uxbridge. These included the main line between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Verney Junction and the branch from Chalfont & Latimer to Chesham. The MGCJR was created under the terms of the Metropolitan & Great Central Railway Act, which received Royal Assent on 4 August 1905. At the same time, the Great Central and Great Western Joint Railway was formed, covering the lines south of Aylesbury via Princes Risborough to Northolt Junction. This was the result of a new line that aided the GC by partly avoiding congestion on the Met. and also giving the Great Western a shorter route to Birmingham1. One curiosity was that a Joint Committee was set up to manage a new Aylesbury station, jointly owned by two joint railways! Some points on terminology: The new line was commonly called just ‘The Joint Line’ and, even in later LT days, some staff still belonged to a particular class that made them feel superior to others2.
    [Show full text]
  • Cartometro London Edition
    @g A B C How Wood (Herts) D E F G H I J King's Cross - St. Pancras Detail Level crossing Pad 22/08/1865 London Underground : 25/09/1949 removed from London Underground : 30/03/1994 2 1 1 2 Blake Hall Closed 31/10/1981 North Weald Loco Pit Ron's Siding Spur Version 3.4 3 Hotel Curve 2 1 York Road Curve Ongar Metropolitan Kings Langley h tt Maiden p Lane Chesham Bricket Wood : Curve 1 / r 2 Goods yard August 2015 /c f . GREATER LONDON ar e t re Redland Road o. .f Level crossing Stone Siding metro Cheshunt Kings Cross Tunnel Overground y g y Kings Cross loop Cheshunt Junction 1 Up Goods Loop Underground, Central 27 1 Epping Theobalds Grove 2 1 Transport Tracks Map Overground, DLR, Level crossing Level crossing Garston (Hertfordshire) Radlett Tracks map with platforms, connections & depots Tramlink & National Rail Waltham Cross Watford Tunnels 24/04/1865 London Underground : 25/09/1949 to Brill & VerneyJunction © 2015 - Franklin JARRIER - Reproduction prohibited without the permission of the author - [email protected] - http://carto.metro.free.fr (part of the metropolitan from 1892 to 1936) Metropolitan Amersham Radlett Junction 31 32 Watford North 3 2 34 NR / LUL 1 Turkey Street boudary 01/09/1892 Hadley Wood North tunnels 2 Theydon Bois 1 Level crossing Enfield Lock Chalfont & Latimer Hadley Wood 3 2 1 Watford north Junction Hadley Wood South tunnels 11 10 Gordon Hill 7 6 9 8 Overground Watford Yard 3 5 1 4 Watford Junction 2 Watford 08/07/1889 south Junction Metropolitan 21 22 1 Watford 23 2 24 Level crossing Elstree & Borehamwood
    [Show full text]
  • Report Consultation Point
    Consultation Point: Foreword Person ID 1214453 Full Name Mr Steven Fayers ID 41 Order 1 Number Title Foreword Organisation Details Consultee Type - Please select the type of consultee: Individual/Resident Date Received - Date Received: 2016-11-29 Duty to Cooperate Body - Is this organisation a Duty to Cooperate No Body? Agent on behalf of - Consultee is an agent on behalf of: Person ID Full Name Organisation Details Plan-Level: Legally Compliant - Do you consider the Local Plan to Legally Compliant be legally compliant/non-compliant. Legally compliant a - Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is/is not legally compliant, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Legally compliant b - Are you proposing a modification to make the No Local Plan legally compliant and/or to strengthen its compliance? Legally compliant c - Please set out your suggested modification(s) below:You will need to say why this modification(s) will make the Local Plan legally compliant/strengthen its legal compliance. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Plan-Level: Soundness - Do you believe this plan meets the tests of Soundness? Soundness mods - Please give details of why you consider this Local Plan is/is not sound, including references to relevant legislation, policies and/or regulations. Please be as precise and succinct as possible. Soundness mods - Are you proposing any modifications to strengthen the Plan's ability meet the test of soundness? Policy 1a - Please specify how you would modify this policy to Please see attached letter describing the reasons for the plan being unsound.
    [Show full text]
  • London Metropolitan Archives London Transport
    LONDON METROPOLITAN ARCHIVES Page 1 LONDON TRANSPORT ACC/1297 Reference Description Dates AYLESBURY AND BUCKINGHAM RAILWAY Minutes ACC/1297/A&B/01/001 Director's Meetings and 1st Meetings of 1860 - 1869 Proprietors ACC/1297/A&B/01/002 Director's and Proprietor's Meetings also 1869 - 1877 Wotton Tramway Committee ACC/1297/A&B/01/003 Committees, Director's and Proprietor's 1877 - 1889 Meetings ACC/1297/A&B/01/004 Director's and Proprietor's Meetings 1889 - 1894 Contract plans and sections ACC/1297/A&B/03/001 Contract Plan and Sections: Aylesbury - Verney c.1860 Railway BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY Minutes ACC/1297/BKW/01/001 Board Meetings 1897 - 1902 ACC/1297/BKW/01/002 Board Meetings 1902 - 1907 ACC/1297/BKW/01/003 Index to minutes [1897 - 1907] ACC/1297/BKW/01/004 Board Meetings with index 1907 - 1910 ACC/1297/BKW/01/005 Committee Minutes 1898 - 1906 ACC/1297/BKW/01/006 Shareholders Meetings 1899 - 1910 Photographs BUS COMPANIES A1 BUS COMPANY ACC/1297/BUS/01/001 Minutes of meetings of Board and Shareholders 1925 - 1928 ACC/1297/BUS/01/002 Ledger 1926 - 1928 ACME PULLMAN SERVICES (BUSES) LONDON METROPOLITAN ARCHIVES Page 2 LONDON TRANSPORT ACC/1297 Reference Description Dates ACC/1297/BUS/02/001 Minutes of Meetings of the Board and 1929 - 1934 Shareholders ACC/1297/BUS/02/002 Ledger 1929 - 1933 ACC/1297/BUS/02/003 Ledger 1931 - 1932 ACC/1297/BUS/02/004 Ledger 1932 ALBERTA OMNIBUS ACC/1297/BUS/03/001 Minutes of Meetings of Board and Shareholders 1925 - 1928 ACC/1297/BUS/03/002 Petty Cash Book 1926 ACC/1297/BUS/03/003 Journal 1925
    [Show full text]
  • Research Guide No 4: Key Dates in the History of London Transport
    TfL Corporate Archives Research Guides Research Guide No 4: Key Dates in the History of London Transport The following dates and events have been extracted from London Transport Diaries and other information in the Archives. Date Event 1829 First horse drawn bus service, operated by George Shillibeer, between Paddington and the Bank, via the Angel. Bus had 22 seats, was drawn by three horses 1831 First mechanical bus. Hancock‟s steam carriage ran Stratford to London 1832 Stage Carriages Act – introduction of licences for buses 1836 First steam railway in London, from Tooley Street (London Bridge) to Deptford, opened by the London & Greenwich Railway 1838 Introduction of drivers‟ and conductors‟ licences 1840 First era of steam buses ended 1843 Opening of the Thames Tunnel, now used by the East London Line. Used only by pedestrians until the 1860's 1850 Horse buses with roof seats – the „knifeboard‟ type – started to run in London 1851 Thomas Tilling started running horse-buses from Peckham 1855 London General Omnibus Company Ltd, formed in Paris as Compagnie des Omnibus de Londres, it was reregistered as an English Company in 1858. Its object was to purchase and operate the horse buses of London, owned for the most part by small scale proprietors. Operation began in 1856 1861-1862 First horse tramways, built by George Francis Train, an American, opened in London, but were unsuccessful and soon removed. The first was along the Bayswater Road from Marble Arch to Porchester Terrace 10/01/1863 First part of the Metropolitan Railway opened, from Paddington (Bishop‟s Road) to Farringdon Street (now Farringdon).
    [Show full text]
  • 50 Years Ago
    50 YEARS AGO Readers will recall that soon after the formation of the London Passenger Transport Board in July 1933, the two outer sections of the Metropolitan Line were closed – passenger traffic, or lack of it, saw Quainton Road – Brill close at the end of traffic on 30 November 1935, followed by the Aylesbury – Verney Junction service some seven months later after traffic on 4 July 1936. The Metropolitan Line then stopped firmly at Aylesbury, apart from a very meagre service provided as far as Quainton Road between May 1943 and May 1948. But 50 years ago, on 10 September 1961, the Metropolitan contracted even further when the section Amersham – Aylesbury South Junction passed from London Transport to British Railways (London Midland Region) control at midnight. This coincided with the end of locomotive-hauled passenger trains on the London Underground, the last day being Saturday 9 September 1961, although last trains were actually in the early hours of 10 September. Left: This event was celebrated by the running of a special train on Saturday afternoon from Baker Street to Amersham, the limit of electrifcation. The six Dreadnought coaches were hauled by electric locomotive No.18 “Michael Faraday” as far as Rickmansworth and between Rickmansworth and Amersham by BR 2-6-4T 42070. The special train terminated at Amersham but continued on empty to Aylesbury1 to reverse. Photo: London Transport By then, work was well underway with the four-tracking of the Metropolitan Line between Harrow North Junction and Watford South Junction. This was one of the projects contained in the 1935-40 New Works Programme, and like the others, had to be deferred in 1940 because of the constraints of the Second World War.
    [Show full text]
  • Chesham /Connect Buckinghamshire Gva.Co.Uk
    Chesham /connect Buckinghamshire gva.co.uk 90 Asheridge Road, HP5 2QE TO LET Two fully enabled shell and core data centre pre let opportunities www.cheshamdatacentre.co.uk Site Summary Location The proposed scheme comprises Situated to the north of Chesham Town Centre in and offers a regular service to London Marylebone. Buckinghamshire, the site is approximately 0.5 miles to the 8,362 m2 (90,000 ft2) of technical A416 Berkhampstead Road which offers access to the M40 Luton and Heathrow Airports are approx. 15 and 18 miles to space split into 2 buildings each of at Junction 2 via the A355 and the M25 at Junction 16. the north east and south respectively. 4,180 m2 (45,000 ft2). It has a fully Chesham Tube Station on the Metropolitan Line is 0.8 miles City 26.7 miles (42.7km) connected and energised 25MVA to the south east which offers a regular service to and from West End 25.2 miles (40.3km) power supply and will be built to suit central London. Docklands 29.7 miles (47.5km) customer specifi c M&E designs. Amersham Railway Station is located 2.9 miles to the south All distances are straight line and approximate. 9 TRING B488 M1 A418 A41 BERKHAMSTED THAME HEMEL 8 ST. ALBANS HEMPSTEAD 7 M10 A414 A416 1 A413 21 21a A4010 CHESHAM 20 AMERSHAM 19 WATFORD HIGH A404 18 WYCOMBE A413 M25 A355 4 M40 2 A404 UXBRIDGE WEMBLEY MAIDENHEAD 16 A40 SLOUGH READING EALING 15 M4 Chesham - 90 Asheridge Road, HP5 2QE Due diligence The site has been fully validated for Data Centre use.
    [Show full text]
  • Standard Online Tube
    Tube map 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Outside fare zones Outside Check before you travel Cheshunt Epping § Heathrow Towards Towards Chesham Watford Junction fare zones TfL Rail customers should change at 9 Chalfont &8 7 St Albans City and Luton Airport Parkway Welwyn Garden City Enfield Town 8 7 Theydon Bois Theobalds Grove 9 Latimer Terminals 2 & 3 for free rail transfer Watford High Street Bush Hill Debden Shenfield to Terminal 5. Watford Cockfosters Amersham New Barnet Park Turkey Street Elstree & Borehamwood High Barnet Loughton --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Chorleywood Bushey Oakwood A § Heathrow Terminal 4 Croxley 8 Totteridge & Whetstone Southbury Chingford Buckhurst Hill 6 Closed until further notice. Rickmansworth Carpenders Park 7 Woodside Park Southgate Brentwood Oakleigh Park Edmonton Green --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moor Park 6 Roding Grange West Finchley § Hounslow West Arnos Grove Valley Hill 5 Hatch End 5 Silver Street Highams Park Step-free access for manual Northwood Edgware Mill Hill East Stanmore Bounds Green Chigwell Harold Wood wheelchairs only. West Ruislip Headstone Lane 4 New Southgate White Hart Lane Northwood Hills Hainault --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finchley Central Woodford Gidea Park Hillingdon Ruislip Harrow & Canons Park Burnt Oak Mill Hill Broadway Wood Green Bruce Grove Pinner Wealdstone § South Kensington Ruislip Manor Harringay Wood Street Fairlop Romford Colindale Green
    [Show full text]
  • Flash Flood History Thames Date and Sources Rainfall Description 12 Jul
    Flash flood history Thames Hydrometric Rivers Tributaries Towns and Cities area 37 Roding Inglebourn, Beam 38 Lee Mimram, Bean, Rib, Ash, Stort, Turkey Brook 39 Upper Thames Swill, Churn Coln, Leach, Ray, Cole, Windrush, Swindon, Cirencester, Cricklade Witney Cherwell Evenlode, Sor, Ray Charlbury, Chipping Norton, Oxford Ock Childray Brook, Thame Abingdon Kennet Og, Dun, Lambourn, Enbourne, Pang Hungerford, Newbury, Reading Blackwater Loddon, Whitewater, Hart Basingstoke, Farnborough, Aldershot Wey Tillingbourne Petersfield, Farnham, Guildford, Woking, Chertsey Mole Ver, Gade, Chess, Misbourne, Reigate, Dorking, Leatherhead Colne Crane, Wandle Brent Date and Rainfall Description sources 12 Jul 1233 Doe Doe notes that this is one <Waverley> (Near Farnham): ‘A terrible tempest beyond precedent raged. Stone bridges and walls were broken (2016) (Annals of the earliest flash flood down and destroyed, rooms and all the offices were violently tumbled together and even at the new monastery accounts to mention of Waverley, inundation levels and note there was flooding in several places to a height of 8 feet. Damage and inconvenience in the same house was Luard 1865) economic loss. such that in the buildings in which manifold things both interior and exterior were lost, no one is able or certain to value them’. 13 Aug 1604 <London>: thunderstorm with great rain and hail caused many cellars to be flooded. Stow Annals Jones et al 1984 3 Jun 1661 <London>: A great rain shower caused flooding in Colman Street and other places. The water rose 4 feet high. Townshend’s diary Jones et al 1984 25 Jun 1662 <London>: So violent a tempest of hail and rain as no man in this age has seen, the hail being in some places 5 Evelyn Diaries or 6 inches about 26 Jul 1666 Hail ‘as big as walnuts’ fell in <London> and on 27th on the <Suffolk> coast.
    [Show full text]
  • Hilltop News
    Hilltop News June & July 2018 Good pub news, at last… he Full Moon has been given a new lease of life. Hannah and Philip TMatthews have taken it on to run as a public Free House and the response from locals has been very complimentary. Furthermore, the White Lion is making progress in its plans to reopen as soon as possible. Bill Ingram, with his regular pub news, gives us the latest in this issue… Around the time you receive this edition of Hilltop News the St Leonards Village Fete will be taking place. This annual event heralds the arrival of summer and we hope Cricket training for the very young – with the we will be blessed with suitable weather. emphasis on fun! Churchwardens needed! By unfortunate coincidence both Mark and Also in this issue: James are moving away from the village at Bonnie Phipps remembered the same time, so St Leonards Church has Tim Taylor remembered two important places to fill. The Walton sisters rewarded Could you help? We have an active Mike Wallis with tales of an auction house and very supportive PCC but we do need Michael Joseph on an Asian trip someone to co-ordinate the work they A new bus route through the Hilltops? do and to be a point of contact in the Community. Chris Brown’s Nature Notes on collecting If you would like more information, and exhibiting. please contact the PCC Secretary, Giles Our Curvaceous Cook serves up a taste of Pemberton [email protected]. summer… …plus all the news from our churches, school, pubs, clubs, councils and societies.
    [Show full text]
  • Brushwood Junior School Candidate Information Pack Class Teacher
    Brushwood Junior School Candidate Information Pack Class Teacher Contents Welcome letter from Jo Robertson, Head Teacher ................................................................................ 3 Job description ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Person specification ................................................................................................................................ 8 Our School Values ................................................................................................................................. 10 The terms and conditions of the role ................................................................................................... 11 Application process and timescales ...................................................................................................... 11 School visits: ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Applications: ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Shortlisting: ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Interview: .......................................................................................................................................... 11 Information
    [Show full text]
  • Step-Free Tube Guide To/From Get to Entrance Approach Station Use
    123456789 Chalfont & Cockfosters Epping Example step-free journey: A Watford A High Barnet C How to plan your How to use this map Chesham Latimer Theydon Bois Further information Sudbury Town to Borough B Totteridge & Whetstone Oakwood A Step-free eastbound only C Tube and DLR journey This map highlights all Tube stations At stations marked with these symbols Debden A Step-free eastbound only Transport for London produce a A Croxley Southgate B where you can get between the you can change between lines step-free Sudbury Town A B Woodside Park Loughton number of documents to help people Find on the map and Amersham Chorleywood 1. Check your starting and platform and street step-free, or (sometimes only in one direction). Step-free C check both the How to use this map A southbound only B Stanmore Mill Hill East Arnos Grove Buckhurst Hill A get around London more easily. You will not be able to get in or out of Rickmansworth Moor Park A B West Finchley Roding destination stations, plus any change between lines step-free. Step-free southbound only Edgware Valley section and Station Index on the Harrow & A Bounds Green Chigwell • Audio Tube map connections, using the symbols Stations where this is not possible are the station without using stairs and/or Northwood Wealdstone Canons Park back of this guide. As the station West Ruislip Burnt Oak C escalators. Step-free Northwood Hills shown in ‘How to use this map’. shown in a light grey. eastbound only A Finchley Central Wood Green • Large print colour Tube map index shows, you should use the
    [Show full text]