DOCSLIB.ORG

April 2020 Railfuture from the North East Bulletin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
April 2020 Railfuture from the North East Bulletin News and Views about Railways in the North East of England Welcome to the April 2020 RailFuture From the North East Bulletin. This edition is, Editor’s because of the current problems in getting it printed and distributed, only Chair available electronically. It is being emailed to members and will be on our website. We’ve added a number of links to items either on the Railfuture Website or to websites run by other local rail groups – all of these will offer more detail than we can provide in this newsletter. These links are embedded in the text so if you see something that looks like this, and this link takes you to the NE Home page on the Railfuture Website, just click and you will be transported to the appropriate page on the internet. A message from the Branch Chair I find myself writing this from a position of ‘Lockdown’ at home. I, together with the rest of the committee, hope that you are all managing to steer clear of the horrid Covid-19 virus. The current situation means, of course, that we have had to cancel our branch AGM on 25 April, we don’t know whether the current restrictions on meeting will still be in place by then, but we have to assume that they, or something very similar, will. One further change to report is that Tony Walker has chosen to stand down as editor of this Bulletin. Tony has been a stalwart of the branch committee for many years and has given freely of his time over many aspects of our activities. He has edited the Branch Bulletin for as long as I can remember with great skill and, as he seeks to reduce his level of involvement, I should like to thank him for his work on our behalf and I hope that we, as a committee, can continue to benefit from his sageness and wisdom in the years to come. April We are very fortunate that we have modern communications, so the work of the branch has continued and, in fact, has become more relevant as train companies have brought in their reduced 2020 “Key worker” timetables. Down here on Teesside, TransPennine’s service to Middlesbrough and Redcar saw a reduction to 2 trains each way daily, though these have now been increased to 4. These trains are the only ones that serve Yarm and I had been able, with the support of the Tees Valley Combined Authority, to get 1 TransPennine and Grand Central to agree that, “Operator of last resort”. The problems faced by during this emergency, most Grand Central the operator, and their impact on the level of trains will also stop there to give key workers a service – particularly in West Yorkshire and the better chance of travelling to their places of North West, had led to so much bad publicity, employment. Unfortunately, I have now heard that the move was probably inevitable. We have that Grand Central are suspending their train to now try to get some representation of the operations from 4 April until further notice. Just “Advisory panel” that is now being set up – or before the emergency really hit, Railfuture will be once the current emergency situation is North East received a request from the new resolved. At present, the make up of the panel is Sedgefield MP for a meeting to discuss the largely local authority based, the same opportunities for rail in his area. I, together with stakeholders as sit on the board of Transport for Tony Walker from our committee, met up with the North. A voice from the rail users’ sector is him on 13 March and we were able to have a vitally important. North East branch is in good discussion about our campaigns. In communication with Yorkshire and North West particular, a new station for Ferryhill, which is in branches to try and take this forward. his constituency was of interest to him. Without our members, Railfuture wouldn’t exist Further north, there have been positive to fight for better services on our railways. comments from government about the Best wishes to all of you in these unprecedented possibility of bringing passenger trains back to times. the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne line, and from Keith Simpson local authorities about funding studies for Branch chairman better local services on the main line north of Morpeth. Both of these campaigns are being led Electrification and capacity by our colleagues in SENRUG, to whom we wish every success. priorities. We face many challenges ahead, not least in We all know that much of life is currently on managing to secure any investment in the rail hold. The likely effects on the viability of the network as the country recovers from the UK’s rail industry are dire in the short term but financial impact of the current Covid-19 virus. in the longer term we will return to rail growth, However, it is imperative that we keep trying, and to all the issues of lack of capacity on our climate change isn’t going away any time soon rail network to accommodate it. In such a and air quality in our towns and cities, whilst situation it is wise to use the current ‘life on temporarily improved by the current decimation hold situation’ to prepare for the future. of traffic levels, needs concerted action to At a national level Railfuture has been using the achieve a permanent turn around. Rail is already time to give some thought to the issue of a low carbon transport mode and electric electrification. An early draft of the paper, that traction can bring this down to almost zero, will eventually be available on the RailFuture depending on how the power is generated. website has been circulated to branches for There is progress towards alternative fuels, comments about priorities and to ask if there most notably hydrogen, where Tees Valley are any local schemes that Ian might have Combined Authority are proposing that local missed. services there are a major test bed for this form The RailFuture proposal is to build on the work of propulsion. Railfuture supports this, of the current electrification teams now nearing especially as the hydrogen will be sourced from the end of the current electrification plan. They an industrial by-product that is presently burned should complete the programme they were set off. up to deliver and then move on to deliver The beginning of March saw Northern, the incremental programmes in specific geographic operator of our local services, transferred from areas. A continuous programme of work will Arriva to the Department for Transport’s allow skills to be retained by the industry in all 2 parts of the country. However, just because a also allow for electric stock to be used between proposed development isn’t actually in our area Redcar and Manchester Airport. As a further doesn’t mean it won’t be of benefit to us. We addition to the Northallerton - Eaglescliffe line support all proposals for electrification but we electrification of the Stillington line would particularly welcome proposals in the draft of provide an alternative route, in effect the much the paper for electrifying the York to needed slow lines, to the ECML. These lines have Manchester line and all of the proposals that great potential for capacity enhancement for facilitate electric haulage of freight. both Teesside-bound services and those linking As one of our committee members has said our area of the North-East with Tyneside and “Isn't it really a question of what shouldn't be Scotland in general. electrified rather than what should?”. On the The Durham Coast: Once the new Metro stock issue of timing another member makes the arrives, with its ability to run on battery power point that “in the next 10 years we’ll see the for up to 45 minutes, the Coast line’s case for increasing change to hybrid if not fully electric electrification all the way through to Newcastle cars. Which means road travel will leapfrog rail at 25kv increases considerably. and become the environmentally way to travel, unless rail electrifies fast.” Northern Advisory Panel Your RailFuture NE Committee are responding A few weeks ago, we read that the new, to this Railfuture paper with the following government owned, Northern was to set up an priorities for the North East: advisory panel. Great news we thought until we saw the list of the members of the panel. In Newcastle to Carlisle where the line comes into themselves they are, we are certain, all proper its own, as a diversionary route, whenever people to be on such a panel but there was a disaster occurs on the ECML & WCML. It is problem. The panel didn’t include any important to note that not all current, or future, individuals from County Durham, Tyne and passenger stock on these routes is bi-mode. Wear, and Northumberland. After some There is also the potential to route Teesport to discussion amongst the branch committee we Mossend freight traffic via this route avoiding issued a press release that drew attention to unwired lines around the Edinburgh suburbs. this omission and asked the Department For When the coal mine at Whitehaven comes on Transport to appoint a local authority stream it could be possible for electric haulage representative from the North East Joint of this coking coal in trainloads from Carlisle to Transport Committee, to augment the expert Teesport. Finally, there is another real local panel and confirm there is a level playing field benefit: the present route has a linespeed across all the regions in the north.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • High Speed Rail
    House of Commons Transport Committee High Speed Rail Tenth Report of Session 2010–12 Volume III Additional written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be published 24 May, 7, 14, 21 and 28 June, 12 July, 6, 7 and 13 September and 11 October 2011 Published on 8 November 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited 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) Jim Dobbin (Labour/Co-operative, Heywood and Middleton) Mr Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South) Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West) Kwasi Kwarteng (Conservative, Spelthorne) Mr John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester Withington) Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys) Iain Stewart (Conservative, Milton Keynes South) Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton) Julian Sturdy (Conservative, York Outer) The following were also members of the committee during the Parliament. Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton) Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South) Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North) Gavin Shuker (Labour/Co-operative, Luton South) Angela Smith (Labour, Penistone and Stocksbridge) 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. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • LTP3 Appendices Document
    LTP3 Appendices Document 1 The Weardale Line Concept 3 2 Outline Case for a New Station on the Durham Coast Line 9 3 The Leamside Line 11 4 LTP3 Policies & Daughter Strategies 13 5 Minor Schemes Review 43 6 Durham City 50 7 Outline Case for East Durham Link Road - Remaining Stage 59 8 Rights Of Way Improvement Plan Summary 62 9 Regeneration Statement Summary 64 10 Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) Summary 67 11 Performance Indicators 71 12 Main Towns Profiles 73 13 Settlements 75 14 Area Action Partnerships 87 LTP3 Appendices Document 1 .0 The Weardale Line Concept Durham County Council 2 LTP3 Appendices Document The Weardale Line Concept 1.0.1 Any reference to the Weardale Line in this document means the branch railway line between Darlington and Eastgate that provides an increasingly important sustainable transport link for the connectivity of settlements in the south west of the county with Darlington and Tees Valley. Background 1.0.2 The Weardale Line was originally part of the Stockton and Darlington Railway, which was the first public passenger steam railway in the world. The extent of the line which remains today was once part of a much wider network in the Bishop Auckland area. 1.0.3 It had played an important role for many years, especially for people commuting to and from work in the Darlington and Tees Valley areas as well as transporting bulk materials from the cement works at Eastgate until its closure in the early 1990's. 1.0.4 Two railway museums have since been located adjacent to the line.....one at the North Road station in Darlington and more recently, the National Railway Museum Annex, Locomotion, at Shildon.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring the River Wear-Part 1
    Armchair Adventurers Explore The River Wear G eog rap Part 1 from the Pennines to the outskirts of Durham hy A period. On the sea bed a limy ooze full of the rch y aeo eolog log G decaying skeletons of sea creatures built up. y Rivers washed down sand and gravel building His up deltas, and forests flourished on the deltas tory and swampy margins. Periodically the seas rose, drowned the deltas and forests and more Geology ooze was deposited; then sea levels dropped The River Wear rises in the North Pennines and and the deltas and forests returned. This cycle flows in an easterly direction to empty in the with compression gave rise to sedimentary North Sea at Sunderland. Weardale is in an rocks. The oozes became limestone, the sands, gravels and muds became shale and sandstone, and the forests became coal. Limestone and sandstone are resistant to erosion, whereas the softer shales wear away more easily. This contrast has produced the terraced hillsides which are characteristic of the whole area and the hard limestone outcrops form waterfalls created by the erosion. area designated for it’s Outstanding Natural Beauty. It is also a UNESCO Global Geopark. A Geopark is a place of outstanding geological heritage which is used to support sustainable development through conservation, education, interpretation and nature tourism. High Force Waterfall Limestone is the dominant rock in Upper The landscape has evolved over 500 million Weardale. Its main constituent, calcium years. During that time the valley has been carbonate, is soluble in rainwater which is liquid molten rock, desert,tropical sea,swamps, acidic and has eroded it to form sink holes, and an ice sheet.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning Support Statement
    Hearing Statement – Matter 7 (Washington) Sunderland Core Strategy and Development Plan On behalf of Barratt David Wilson Homes (North East)(East of Washington: Washington Meadows) April 2019 Hearing Statement: Matter 7 (Washington) – Sunderland Core Strategy and Development Plan BDW (North East) (East of Washington: Washington Meadows), April 2019 1. Introduction 1.1. This is a Hearing Statement prepared by Spawforths on behalf of Barratt David Wilson Homes (North East)(BDW) in respect of: • Matter 7: The Strategy, Housing Growth Areas and Safeguarded Land for Washington 1.2. BDW has significant land interests in the area and has made representations to earlier stages of the Local Plan process. 1.3. The Inspector’s Issues and Questions are included in bold for ease of reference. The following responses should be read in conjunction with BDW’s comments upon the submission version of the Sunderland Core Strategy and Development Plan, dated July 2018. 1.4. BDW has also expressed a desire to attend and participate in Matter 7 of the Examination in Public. 2 Hearing Statement: Matter 7 (Washington) – Sunderland Core Strategy and Development Plan BDW (North East) (East of Washington: Washington Meadows), April 2019 2. Matter 7 – The Strategy, Housing Growth Areas and Safeguarded Land for Washington Issue – This matter considers the strategic policies (SP3, SS2 and SS3) and the Housing Growth Areas (HGA1-HGA6) for Washington. Strategic Policies 1.1) Are Policies SP3 and SS2 justified and effective? 2.1. BDW supports the identification of land to the East of Washington (Washington Meadows) as safeguarded land. However, BDW maintain earlier objections and in line with other statements consider the site should be allocated for housing.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wear Valley Railway (Transfer) Order 2020
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2020 No. 1137 TRANSPORT AND WORKS, ENGLAND TRANSPORT, ENGLAND The Wear Valley Railway (Transfer) Order 2020 Made - - - - 15th October 2020 Coming into force - - 5th November 2020 CONTENTS PART 1 PRELIMINARY 1. Citation and commencement 2. Interpretation 3. Disapplication of certain enactments relating to level crossings PART 2 TRANSFER OF THE RAILWAY 4. Transfer of rights and obligations to undertaker, etc. 5. Transfer of railway by undertaker PART 3 MISCELLANEOUS 6. Power to operate and use railway 7. Level crossings 8. Restrictions as to the conveyance of passengers 9. Provisions as to bridges SCHEDULES SCHEDULE 1 — ROAD LEVEL CROSSINGS PART 1 — LEVEL CROSSINGS TO WHICH PART 2 APPLIES PART 2 — CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS TO BE OBSERVED BY THE UNDERTAKER SCHEDULE 2 — FOOTPATH/BRIDLEWAY LEVEL CROSSINGS PART 1 — LEVEL CROSSINGS TO WHICH PART 2 APPLIES PART 2 — CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS TO BE OBSERVED BY THE UNDERTAKER An application has been made to the Secretary of State in accordance with the Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) (England and Wales) Rules 2006( a) for an Order under sections 1 and 5 of the Transport and Works Act 1992( b) (“the 1992 Act”). The Secretary of State has determined to make an Order giving effect to the proposal comprised in the application with modifications which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, do not make a substantial change in the proposals. Notice of the Secretary of State’s determination was published in the London Gazette on 19 th October 2020. The Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 1 and 5 of, and paragraphs 1, 8, 15 and 17 of Schedule 1 to the 1992 Act, makes the following Order— PART 1 PRELIMINARY Citation and commencement 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Orpheus Phase 1A Summary Report
    Project Orpheus Phase 1A Summary Report May 2003 PHASE 1A SUMMARY REPORT Contents Section Page 1 Summary and Recommendations 3 2 Background 5 3 Overview of Process 6 4 Phase 1A Stakeholder Consultation 8 5 Corridor Selection Process 9 6 Route Assessment and Selection Process 11 Appendices Date A Working Note 1 August 2002 B Working Note 2 – Phase 1A Route Assessment November 2002 and Selection C Working Note 2 – Phase 1A Route Assessment January 2003 and Selection - UPDATE PHASE 1A SUMMARY REPORT 1 Summary The work programme for Orpheus has three distinct phases: Phase 1A - option identification and preliminary assessment Phase 1B - LRT Option Development Phase 2 – Seek Government Approval This report presents and summarises the work carried out in Phase 1A and the recommendations from the consultant team with regards the identification, appraisal and selection of potential Orpheus corridors and routes suitable for taking forward for more detailed appraisal. All the routes have been appraised in accordance with the latest Department for Transport appraisal criteria for Major Schemes (GoMMMS and updates). This will be drawn up into an Annex E submission to DfT for the preferred routes as part of the Phase 1B work programme. This information (from 1B) will also form a key element of the Outline Business Case to be put to Central Government for funding support, and a decision to proceed to Transport & Works Act Order (TWAO) proceedings. The diagram over summarises the process adopted during Phase 1A: 3 PHASE 1A SUMMARY REPORT 4 PHASE 1A SUMMARY REPORT 2 Background In 2001 Nexus published “Towards 2016”, the fifteen year strategy for the development of public transport in Tyne & Wear.
    [Show full text]
  • Shaping Our Future
    Place Select Committee item 5 Strategic Transport Update March 2018 Overview • Key Recent Achievements • Future Schemes • Public Transport issues • TfN and Regional Strategy Achievements in 2017/2018 • National Productivity Investment Funding (£4m) awarded to improve A185 / Mill Lane corridor and A19 Lane Gain / Lane Drop schemes; • IAMP Area Action Plan adopted following Public Examination with £45m of highway improvements proposed; • Metro Fleet Investment confirmed (£337m); • Successful Clean Bus Technology Fund bid to improve bus engine specifications, with £484,000 awarded; • Lindisfarne Major Scheme delivered on time and on budget, with the Arches scheme commencing in January 2018; • Testo’s / Downhill Lane Schemes – Development Consent Orders progressing with construction to start in January 2019. Future Investment Schemes • The Arches Scheme delivered by 2019; • A185 / Pilgramsway Junction Improvements from 2019/20 - £1.6m in LGF funding; • Delivery of NPIF schemes; • Level Crossing Closure Scheme constructed working with Network Rail; Mill Lane / A185 Junction • Adoption of Local Air Quality Plan by October 2018; • Cycling Improvements Bids submitted to Highways England for A184 and A19; • Testo’s and Downhill Schemes to be constructed by 2021; • White Mare Pool Junction – construction from 2028. Public Transport Improvements • Metro Track Duelling from Pelaw to Jarrow including new Hebburn metro station at Mill Lane; • Metro Futures– working with Nexus to establish route extensions including IAMP links using the Leamside Line and South Shields to Sunderland extension; • South Shields Public Transport Interchange constructed by 2019; • Clean Bus Technology Funding (£484,000) awarded to retrofit 29 buses; • Formulation of South Tyneside Transport Forum with Public Transport User Group • Path to Excellence – Investigations for improved Public Transport connectivity to South Tyneside and Sunderland Royal hospitals.
    [Show full text]
  • (Public Pack)Approved Minutes Minutes Supplement for North East
    1 North East Combined Authority, Transport North East Committee 8 February 2018 Approved Minutes Meeting held Crown Plaza, Hawthorn Square, Forth Street, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 3SA. Present: Councillor : N Forbes(Chair) Councillors: J McCarty, J Harrison, M Green, S Green, J McElroy, G Hobson, A West, M Mordey, M Speding, Cllr J Riddle and K Shaw 36 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies were received from Cllr G Sanderson (Northumberland) 37 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST None 38 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD ON 30 NOVEMBER 2017 The minutes of the meeting held on 30 November 2017 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 39 EAST COAST MAINLINE UPDATE Submitted: Report of the Managing Director (Transport Operations) previously circulated and a copy attached to the Official Minutes. Consideration was given to the report the purpose of which was to inform the Committee of the consultation in respect of Network Rail’s East Coast Route Study to which NECA will respond. Work continues on making the case for East Coast Main Line (ECML) investment including by the East Coast Main Line consortium, the High Speed 2 East Group and also the formation of a new All Party Parliamentary Group. Members received a presentation from J Bell and R Fairy on behalf of Network Rail and updated Members on some of the proposals for various stations on the North East section of the line. The 90 day consultation process was due to end on 16 March 2018. During discussion members comments/queries included:- 2 The improvements to Sunderland Station, an update was requested Referring to the scope of the study a concern was raised regarding the lack of proposals north of Newcastle even though there were issues such as car parking associated with stations.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Local Aggregate Assessment for County Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear (April 2018) Contents
    Joint Local Aggregates Assessment for County Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear April 2018 Prepared jointly by Durham County Council Northumberland County Council Gateshead Council Northumberland National Park Authority Newcastle City Council South Tyneside Council North Tyneside Council Sunderland City Council Contents Executive Summary 3 Aggregates in the Joint LAA area 3 Demand indicators 3 Balance between supply and demand 4 Inter mineral planning authority issues 5 Dashboard 6 1. Introduction 9 2. Background/context 10 What are aggregates? 10 What is a Local Aggregate Assessment? 10 Joint approach to the Local Aggregate 11 Assessment Managed Aggregates Supply System 12 Timescale for the Local Aggregate 13 Assessment Overview of the data used 13 3. Aggregate resources, consents and 14 allocations County Durham 14 Northumberland 22 Tyne and Wear 27 4. Aggregate sales and permitted reserves 31 Sand and gravel (from quarries in the Joint 31 LAA area) Crushed rock (from quarries in Joint LAA 36 area) Marine sand and gravel 43 Imports of crushed rock by sea 44 Imports and exports 44 Recycled and secondary aggregates 49 5. Forecasting demand 51 A comparison of sales averages 51 Recent sales and pre-recession sales 52 Local factors influencing demand 53 Recommended method and provision 59 6. Assessment of supply options 61 Land-won primary aggregates - County 61 Durham Joint Local Aggregate Assessment for County Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear (April 2018) Contents Land-won primary aggregates - 64 Northumberland Land-won primary aggregates - Tyne and 66 Wear Marine dredged sand and gravel 69 Imports of crushed rock by sea 70 Recycled and secondary aggregates 70 Imports 70 7.
    [Show full text]
  • County Durham LTP3 HRA Screening 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Appropriate Assessment Process 3 1.2 Natura 2000 Sites 3
    Contents County Durham LTP3 HRA Screening 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Appropriate Assessment Process 3 1.2 Natura 2000 Sites 3 2 Identification and Description of Natura 2000 Sites 5 3 Description of the Plan 15 3.1 LTP3 Strategy and Delivery Plan 20 4 Methodology: Broad Impact Types and Pathways 21 5 Screening Analysis of Draft LTP3 25 5.1 Goals and Objectives 25 5.2 Draft policies and related interventions in the three year programme 25 6 Assessment of Likely Significance 57 6.1 Assessment of Likely Significance 57 6.2 Other plans and projects 75 7 LTP3 Consultation: Amendments and Implications for HRA 77 Appendices 1 Component SSSIs of Natura 2000 Sites within 15km of County Durham 95 2 Summary of Favourable Conditions to be Maintained, Condition, Vulnerabilities and Threats of Natura 2000 Sites 108 3 Initial Issues Identification of Longer-term Programme 124 County Durham LTP3 HRA Screening Contents County Durham LTP3 HRA Screening Introduction 1 1 Introduction 1.0.1 Durham County Council is in the process of preparing its Local Transport Plan 3. In accordance with the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2010 and European Communities (1992) Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Fauna and Flora, County Durham is required to undertake Screening for Appropriate Assessment of the draft Local Transport Plan. 1.1 Appropriate Assessment Process 1.1.1 Under the Habitat Regulations, Appropriate Assessment is an assessment of the potential effects of a proposed project or plan on one or more sites of international nature conservation importance.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecting Communities: Improving Transport to Get ‘Left Behind’ Neighbourhoods Back on Track
    Connecting communities: improving transport to get ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods back on track March 2021 This is not an official publication of the House of Commons or the House of Lords. It has not been approved by either House or its committees.All-Party-Parliamentary Groups are informal groups of Members of both Houses with a common interest in particular issues. The views expressed in this report are those of the group. This report was researched by OCSI, Campaign for Better Transport, and Local Trust. It was funded by Local Trust, secretariat to the APPG for ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods. Connecting communities: improving transport to get ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods back on track 1 About the All-Party Parliamentary About this report Group for ‘left behind’ The APPG held its fifth evidence session on neighbourhoods 26th January 2021: Buses, broadband and The All-Party Parliamentary Group for ‘left behind’ Beeching – boosting connectivity in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods is a cross party group of MPs neighbourhoods. This report is a reflection of and Peers. It is committed to improving social that session and the data presented at it. and economic outcomes for residents living in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods, through the It considered how poor levels of connectivity – development and advocacy of neighbourhood both physical and digital – can contribute to initiatives and policies. an area being ‘left behind’ compounding other disadvantages faced by residents including appg-leftbehindneighbourhoods.org.uk poor health and educational attainment @appgleftbehind and unemployment. The APPG heard how this can make it harder for local people to take About Local Trust sustained action and make improvements to their personal circumstances and their Local Trust is a place-based funder supporting community's prospects.
    [Show full text]
  • International Advanced Manufacturing Park Area Action Plan
    PSD8 Sunderland City Council and South Tyneside Council International Advanced Manufacturing Park Area Action Plan Report of Representations February 2017 The International Advanced Manufacturing Park Report of Representations February 2017 1. This report includes copies of representations received as a result of the consultation completed in accordance with Regulation 19 of Statutory Instrument 2012 No.767 The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (the “2012 regulations”), which consulted upon the International Advanced Manufacturing Park Area Action Plan (IAMP AAP) Publication Draft August 2016. 2. The Consultation Statement in the IAMP AAP Compliance Statement (PSD9) sets out: • Which bodies and persons the Council invited to make representations under Regulation 18, Regulation 19 Regulation 20; and • How those bodies and persons were invited to make representations. 3. The Schedule of Representations (PSD9) sets out how any representations made pursuant to Regulation 19 have been taken into account. 4. In total, 39 representations were duly made. Four representations have been subsequently withdrawn following agreed Statements of Common Ground (Appendix 2). 5. In total, 8 parties expressed that they would like to attend the examination in public to express their views. These are as follows: • Barrat David Wilson Homes; • Buckley Burnett Limited, Diane Talbot and W Gordon Proud Trust; • Harworth Estates; • NELSAM; • Peel, Mary; • Save The Trident; • Storey, Paul; and • Town End Farm Partnership. 6. Four
    [Show full text]