DOCSLIB.ORG

Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement A14 Non-Motorised User Audit Report Audit at Detailed Design Stage December 2007 Non-Motorised User Audit Report Audit at Detailed Design Stage December 2007 Produced for Highways Agency Prepared by Mouchel Knights House 2 Parade Sutton Coldfield West Midlands B72 1PH T 0121 355 8949 F 0121 355 8901 E @mouchel.com Document Control Sheet Project Title A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement Report Title Non-Motorised User Audit Report Revision C Status Issue Control Date 10 December 2007 Record of Issue Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date A Draft Keith Lewis 09/07 O Garland 09/07 O Garland 09/07 B Draft Keith Lewis 09/07 O Garland 09/07 O Garland 09/07 C Draft Keith Lewis 11/07 O Garland 11/07 O Garland 11/07 C Issue Keith Lewis 12/07 O Garland 12/07 O Garland 12/07 Distribution Organisation Contact Copies Highways Agency Roger Hawkins 1 (Draft A&B) 1 (Draft C & Michael Povey Issue C) 718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc i © Mouchel 2007 Contents Document Control Sheet............................................................................................. i Contents...................................................................................................................... ii Tables ......................................................................................................................... iv Foreword ..................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction........................................................................................................ 2 1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Scope of the NMU Audit ...................................................................................... 2 2 Objectives and Design Features....................................................................... 6 3 Public Inquiry................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 10 3.2 Objections ......................................................................................................... 10 3.2.1 Public Footpath 37 10 3.2.2 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill junction 11 3.2.3 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 11 3.2.4 NMU Crossings along De-trunked A14 and side roads 11 3.2.5 Alternative NMU routes 12 3.2.6 Shepherds Lane 12 3.3 Inspector’s Recommendations........................................................................... 12 3.3.1 Public Footpath 37 12 3.3.2 NMU Facilities at Tot Hill Junction 13 3.3.3 Other NMU Crossings of the trunk road 13 3.3.4 NMU Crossings along detrunked A14 and side roads 14 718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc ii © Mouchel 2007 3.3.5 Alternative NMU routes 14 3.3.6 Shepherds Lane 15 4 Items raised in this Audit ................................................................................ 16 4.1 Potential Misuse Of Proposed NMU Facilities.................................................... 16 4.2 Design Of The New NMU Route........................................................................ 17 4.3 Design Of The NMU Crossings At Quarries Cross And Fishponds Way ............ 18 4.4 NMU Facilities At Tot Hill Junction..................................................................... 19 4.5 Footpath 2 ......................................................................................................... 20 4.6 Shepherds Lane ................................................................................................ 20 5 Audit Team Statement..................................................................................... 22 Appendix A Drawings.............................................................................................. 23 718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc iii © Mouchel 2007 Tables 1. Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT – 2009 and 2024 3 2. Consultations with interested parties / user groups 4 3. Objectives and design features 6 718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc iv © Mouchel 2007 718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc v © Mouchel 2007 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report Foreword This Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report has been prepared for the Highways Agency (HA) at the Detailed Design Stage of the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme. It may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this report. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report, Mouchel Parkman Services Limited (MPL) is obliged to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence in the performance of the services required by the HA, and MPL shall not be liable except to the extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence, and this report shall be read and construed accordingly. This report has been prepared by MPL. No individual is personally liable in connection with the preparation of this report. By receiving this report and acting on it, the client or any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract, tort, for breach of statutory duty or otherwise. 718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc 1 © Mouchel 2007 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report 1. Introduction 1.1 Overview This report results from a Detailed Design Stage Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit carried out on the A14 Haughley New Street to Stowmarket Improvement scheme. The Audit was carried out by the Design Team in August 2007 in accordance with HD 42/05 “Non-Motorised User Audits” (DMRB 5.2.5). An NMU Context report was prepared in accordance with HD 42/05 by the Design Team at the Preliminary Design Stage. It included changes up to the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006. The NMU Context Report was updated and a draft reissued at the Detailed Design Stage in August 2007. The Design Team comprised of: • Oliver Garland (Design Team Leader) C.Eng, MICE • Keith Lewis (NMU Audit Leader) I.Eng. AMICE • Paul Corbett (Senior Technician) HNC Civil Engineering 1.2 Scope of the NMU Audit The audit consisted of: i. An examination of the ‘NMU Context’ report that was prepared at Preliminary Design Stage. The report was considered to be still valid, although the following material changes that have taken place since the publication of Draft Orders in March 2006 and are included in the updated report. • Public Inquiry held in November 2006 and Secretaries of State’s decision to proceed with the scheme announced in April 2007. • Updated traffic flow forecasts based on the Most Likely Flows from the Mouchel Parkman traffic model (July 2006). Refer to Table 1 below. 718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc 2 © Mouchel 2007 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report Section of road Estimated two-way Estimated two-way flow AADT (2009) flow AADT (2024) De-trunked A14 – Haughley New Street to 887 1,240 Quarries Cross De-trunked A14 – Quarries Cross to 1484 1,952 Fishponds Way De-trunked A14 - Tot Hill Junction to 9,543 11,505 Stowmarket Proposed A14 – Haughley Bushes 40,466 51,813 Accommodation Bridge to Tot Hill Junction Proposed A14 – Tot Hill Junction to eastern 42,853 55,159 limit of the Scheme Table 1. Estimated two-way traffic flow AADT – 2009 and 2024 • The undertaking of Public Footpath Usage Surveys at strategic locations on the public footpath network on 2nd July and 10th September 2006. The locations for the survey stations (shown on drawing 718009/SI/032 A appendix A) were selected on those public footpaths whose usage could be influenced by the proposed improvement. Each survey recorded the number and approximate age range of people using the footpath network. The condition of the footpaths was also documented. The results of the surveys have been presented in the Public Footpath Survey Usage Reports ref: 717647/OR/38 and 717647/OR/48. • Closure of Haughley Bushes picnic site by Suffolk County Council in September 2006 as a result of anti-social behaviour taking place at the site. This closure is a temporary measure whilst Suffolk County Council reviews how access to the site should be managed. • Approval of the proposed Stowmarket Relief Road B1115. Following the Public Inquiry, the Inspector recommended the scheme should proceed, and a decision letter was issued 13/07/06. Construction is expected to start at the beginning of 2008. It is currently expected to be open to traffic in 2009. 718009 OR 16 NMU Audit Issue Rev C2.doc 3 © Mouchel 2007 Non-Motorised User (NMU) Audit Report ii. A continuous assessment of the proposed scheme design against the needs of Non- Motorised Users. iii. Further consultations with the interested parties / user groups shown in Table 2 below. Acting Central Area Highway Manager (Mike Young ) Suffolk County Council (SCC) Assistant Area Highways Manager (Bob Daniels) Countryside Access Leader (Andrew Woodin) Countryside Access Officer (Claire Prime) Cycling Officer (Lucy Williams) Gipping Valley Countryside Officer and Haughley Picnic Site (Nick Dickson) Maintenance Manager (Mike Atkins) Road Safety Engineer (Brian Lomax) Senior Development Control Officer (Bob Leonard) Senior Legal Executive (Shane Hines) Street Lighting Engineer (Phil Scragg) Transport Planner (Alastair Southgate) Transport Policy Officer (Lewis Boudville) Waste Operations Manager (Adam
Load more

Recommended publications
  • City-REDI Policy Briefing Series
    City-REDI Policy Briefing Series March Image Image 2018 Part B Carillion’s Collapse: Consequences Dr Amir Qamar & Professor Simon Collinson Carillion, the second-largest construction firm in the UK, were proud of their commitment to support regional growth and small-scale suppliers. As part of this commitment they directed 60% of project expenditure to local economies. Following the collapse of the firm, this positive multiplier effect became a significant, negative multiplier effect, particularly damaging to small-scale suppliers in the construction industry. The aim of this policy brief is to examine the consequences of Carillion’s demise, many of which are only now surfacing. One of the fundamental lessons that we can learn from Carillion’s collapse is about these ‘contagion’ effects. As we saw in the 2008 financial crisis, the businesses that underpin the economic health of the country are connected and strongly co-dependent. When a large flagship firm falls it brings down others. This does not mean we need more state intervention. But it does mean we need more intelligent state intervention. One of the fundamental lessons that the Government can learn from the Carillion episode is that it has a significant responsibility as a key customer, using public sector funds for public sector projects, to monitor the health of firms and assess the risks prior to issuing PPI and other contracts. 1 Introduction The collapse of Carillion, the second-largest construction firm in the UK, has had a significant, negative knock-on effect, particularly on small-scale suppliers in the industry. In total, Carillion was comprised of 326 subsidiaries, of which 199 were in the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Crr 412/2002
    HSE Health & Safety Executive A survey of UK approaches to sharing good practice in health and safety risk management Prepared by Risk Solutions for the Health and Safety Executive CONTRACT RESEARCH REPORT 412/2002 HSE Health & Safety Executive A survey of UK approaches to sharing good practice in health and safety risk management E Baker Risk Solutions 1st floor, Central House 14 Upper Woburn Place London, WC1H 0JN United Kingdom The concept of good practice is central to HSE’s approach to regulation of health and safety management. There must therefore be a common understanding of what good practice is and where it can be found. A survey was conducted to explore how industry actually identifies good practice in health and safety management, decides how to adopt it, and how this is communicated with others. The findings are based primarily on a segmentation of the survey results by organisation size, due to homogeneity of the returns along other axes of analysis. A key finding is that there is no common understanding of the term good practice or how this is distinguished from best practice. Regulatory interpretation of good practice is perceived to be inconsistent. Three models were identified: A) Large organisations, primarily in privatised industries, have effective Trade Associations where good practice is developed and guidance disseminated industry-wide. B) Large and medium-sized organisations in competitive industries have ineffective trade associations. They develop good practices in-house and may only share these with their competitors when forced to do so. C) Small organisations have little contact with their competitors.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring the London Plan Energy Policies ­ Phase 3
    Monitoring the London Plan Energy Policies ­ Phase 3 Part 1 report FINAL December 2009 Prepared for: By: Greater London Authority Prof Tony Day, Princess Ogumka & City Hall Phil Jones The Queen’s Walk London South Bank University London SE1 2AA 103 Borough Road Tel 020 7983 4592 London SE1 0AA Tel: 020 7815 7656 E-mail: [email protected] Part 1 report FINAL Contents CONTENTS.................................................................................................................................2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................3 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................8 2. RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 10 2.1. Emissions.................................................................................................................................. 11 2.2. Savings..................................................................................................................................... 12 2.3. Analysis of Energy Efficiency contributions............................................................................... 17 2.4. Analysis of contributions from CHP with communal heating .................................................... 19 2.4.1. Contribution by CHP type........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Housing Audit: Assessing the Design Quality of New Homes
    1 SENSE OF PLACE SENSE OF PLACE 2 APPROPRIATE ENCLOSURE ■ Main Street ■ Secondary Street ■ Tertiary Street / Lane / Courtyard 3 SAFETY ■ Is there active frontage on public spaces? ■ Is there overlooking frontage on public spaces? ■ Are the public spaces well lit? ■ Is there fenestration on two elevations at corners? 4 LEGIBILITY ■ Are there orientation markers? ■ Is there a series of events/spaces? 5 EXPLOITATION OF SITE’S ASSETS ■ Are existing buildings retained? ■ Is mature planting retained? ■ Does the layout respond to topography? 6 AVOIDANCE OF HIGHWAY DOMINANCE AND PEDESTRIAN REALM ROADS, PARKING ■ Do footpaths relate to building line? ■ Does the carriageway width vary? 7 PROMOTION OF NON-CAR TRAVEL ■ Is there a permeable network of routes? ■ Are the streets designed to calm traffic? ■ Are there dedicated bus/cycle lanes? ■ Is there safe cycle storage, close to homes? 8 CAR PARKING BUILDING FOR LIFE ■ Parking Type ■ Is it well integrated with public space? ■ Is parking visually unobtrusive? ■ Is it well integrated with planting? 9 SERVICING ■ Is the waste storage unobtrusive? ■ Are servicing arrangements well integrated? 10 MOVEMENT INTEGRATION ■ Are there connections to existing footpaths? ■ Are there multiple connections to the surrounding road network? ■ Is there easy access to main routes? ■ Does the development integrate with existing built development? 11 BESPOKE DESIGN DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION ■ Is bespoke design evident? ■ Is the local vernacular employed? 12 ARCHITECTURAL QUALITY ■ Are good quality materials used? ■ Is attention
    [Show full text]
  • VPS SPD Consultation Statement
    Parking Standards Design and Good Practice Supplementary Planning Document Consultation Statement (Regulation 17 Statement) In the preparation of draft Supplementary Planning Guidance the Department for Communities and Local Government advises authorities to informally involve local communities and other stakeholders in the development of policies. Work on the Parking Standards Design and Good Practice document commenced in May 2007 by the forming of a Parking Standards Review Group. This group was led by officers of the Essex County Council Strategic Development section working with colleagues from both within Essex County Council and Essex local authorities. A list of those involved is included on page iii of the document. The development of the draft Parking Standards Design and Good Practice document has taken place over a 24-month period and comprised the following main activities: Residents Survey May- September 2007 (to complement a related existing survey undertaken in 2006) Group Site visits June – July 2007 Individual site visits, evening and weekends June – July 2007 Education meeting August 2007 Regular Review Group meetings May – April 2008 Review of other authority Parking Standards May – April 2008 SEA September 2008 – March 2009 Public Consultation March – April 2009 The scope and outcome of these activities are summarised below: 1. Residents Survey A survey was undertaken by Essex County Council term consultant’s Mouchel, to ascertain the opinions of local residents from housing developments that had recently been constructed
    [Show full text]
  • SC03-1610 RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL : SERVICES, INC., a Florida Corporation
    SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA CASE NO: SC03-1610 RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL : SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation : and RICHARD VANDENBERG, : : Petitioners, : : v. : : STEVEN W. SALDUKAS and : STESAL INVESTMENTS, LLC., : : Respondents. : ___________________________________ : ON APPEAL FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS LAKELAND, FLORIDA RESPONDENTS’ BRIEF ON THE MERITS Christopher T. Vernon Attorneys for Respondent Florida Bar No. 0748110 Benjamin C. Iseman Florida Bar No. 0194506 Treiser, Collins & Vernon 3080 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34112 Telephone (239) 649-4900 Facsimile (239) 649-0823 F. Paul Bland, Jr. (Petition for pro hac vice admission pending) Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone (202) 797-8600 Facsimile (202) 232-7203 Attorneys for Respondents TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND OF THE FACTS .................... 3 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................... 10 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................. 13 II. A SHOWING OF PREJUDICE IS NOT REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH A WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO ARBITRATE. .................. 15 A. UNDER THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT, THIS COURT SHOULD ANALYZE THIS ISSUE UNDER GENERALLY APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES OF FLORIDA CONTRACT LAW. ............................................. 15 B. GENERALLY APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES OF FLORIDA CONTRACT LAW DO NOT REQUIRE A SHOWING OF PREJUDICE TO ESTABLISH THE WAIVER OF CONTRACTUAL RIGHT. ............................. 21 C. THE MORE PERSUASIVE FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITIES AGREE THAT A SHOWING OF PREJUDICE i IS NOT REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A PARTY HAS WAIVED ITS RIGHT TO ARBITRATE. ............... 26 1. Persuasive Federal Authorities Support the Plaintiffs Here ............................. 26 2. The Federal Cases Relied Upon by Defendants Are Not Persuasive .......................... 29 3. The Florida Cases Relied Upon By Defendants Are Not Persuasive .........................
    [Show full text]
  • Building Towards Sustainability
    Building Towards Sustainability Performance and Progress Among the UK’s Leading Housebuilders Part of WWF’s One Million Sustainable Homes Campaign For further information go to: www.wwf.org.uk/sustainablehomes Introducing Insight Investment Upstream is a strategic sustainability consultancy specialising in the built environment sector. Upstream Insight Investment is the asset manager of UK assists its clients to develop strategies for economic, financial services company HBOS. It currently environmental and social responsibility, and to manages £67.8 billion. These funds represent the integrate and align them with their business goals. assets of millions of people in the form of their Upstream pensions, life insurance and other stock market- 70 Cowcross Street based investments. Insight has an explicit London EC1M 6EJ commitment to act as a responsible investor on behalf of its clients. For further information see Telephone: 020 7250 3900 Insight’s Investor Responsibility Policy, available online Fax: 020 7250 3580 at www.insightinvestment.com/corporate/responsibility www.upstreamstrategies.co.uk There are two principal reasons why Insight pursues a policy of engaging with companies in which it invests. First, Insight believes it is in its clients’ long-term financial interests that the companies in which it invests behave responsibly. Failure to do so typically provokes government and societal sanctions such as fines, litigation, new regulation and taxes, consumer boycotts and damage to reputation, all of which create material risks to long-term shareholder value. Insight therefore analyses and engages with companies to assess and to encourage them to operate according to best practice standards on a range of environmental, ethical and social issues.
    [Show full text]
  • The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago in the High Court Of
    THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Port of Spain Claim No: CV2017-01145 BETWEEN ROBERT GORMANDY First Claimant SHAUN SAMMY Second Claimant And TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Defendant Before the Honourable Mr. Justice R. Rahim Date of Delivery: November 9, 2018 Appearances: Claimants: Mr. R. L. Maharaj SC, Mr. R. Bissessar, Mr. A. Ramroop and Ms. V. Maharaj instructed by Mr. V. Gopaul Defendant: Ms. D. Peake SC and Mr. R. Heffes-Doon instructed by Mr. A. Rudder Page 1 of 123 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 Issue 7 The other claim 7 The case for the claimants 7 The case for the defendant 68 Law 83 The submissions of the defendant 84 The submissions of the claimant 94 The defendant’s submissions in reply 108 Findings 113 Disposition 123 Page 2 of 123 JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION 1. This claim is one for possession of lands by the first claimant (“Gormandy”) situate in the Ward of Couva comprising 1.8662 hectares. The second claimant (“Sammy”) is an executive director of Junior Sammy Contractors Limited (“JSCL”) and Executive Director and manager of Julin Limited (“Julin”). 2. By Claim filed on April 28, 2017 Gormandy, a farmer, claims that in 1984 he went into occupation and possession of certain lands situated in Couva comprising approximately three acres more or less and which was bounded on the north by a housing scheme, on the south by the BC River, on the east by a recreation ground and housing scheme and on the west by lands of Julin (formerly Carillion (Caribbean) Limited) (formerly George Wimpey Caribbean Limited).
    [Show full text]
  • Pride in the Job Quality Award Winners 2007
    Pride in the Job Quality Award Winners 2007 Region Site Manager CategoryWinning Site Organisation East Avtar Bahra L Farriers Way, Lidlington, Bedfordshire David Wilson Homes South Midlands East Peter Baker L The Poplars, St Crispin, Area E, Duston, Northamptonshire Taylor Woodrow Developments (East Midlands) Ltd East Vince Bamonte L Cedars Park, Stowuplands Road, Stowmarket, Suffolk Crest Nicholson (Eastern) Ltd East Jim Bartlett L The Hawthorns, Bunkers Hill, Lincoln, Lincolnshire Persimmon Homes (East Yorkshire) East Rod Bell SM Banovallum Gardens, Horncastle, Lincolnshire Bell & Shinn Developments Ltd East Ian Bentley L Highfields Convent, Broadway, Derby, Derbyshire Taylor Woodrow Developments (East Midlands) Ltd East Craig Betteridge L Potters Hollow, Leonard Street, Bulwell, Nottinghamshire George Wimpey East Midlands Ltd East Mike Bettridge L Poppyfields 2, Oakley Vale, Corby, Northamptonshire George Wimpey East Midlands Ltd East Martin Bottomley L Morledge, Matlock, Derbyshire William Davis Ltd East Garry Bowler L Trinity Park, Cotes Road, Barrow on Soar, Leicestershire Miller Homes (East Midlands) East Terry Brand L The Keep, Lyvelly Gardens, Buss Land, Peterborough David Wilson Homes South Midlands East Martyn Brooks L Lemsford Lane, Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire McCann Homes Ltd East Pierce Browne L Bloxham Grange, Banbury Road, Bloxham, Oxon George Wimpey West Midlands Ltd East Charlie Burton L The Grange, Harborough Road, Desborough, Northamptonshire Barratt Northampton East Dick Buswell L Oxley Grange, Oxley Park, Milton
    [Show full text]
  • FOI Request 7862
    FOI Ref Response sent 7862 13 Oct 20 (CCC) Taylor Wimpey - Council Tax & NNDR Credit/Refund Request A) Can you please confirm if your Authority in both the council tax and business rates department holds accounts for Taylor Wimpey or its Subsidiaries listed below (Yes or No will be fine but please specify NNDR or Ctax). Taylor Wimpey and its subsidiaries; including but not limited to Bryant Homes, Taylor Woodrow, George Wimpey, Taylor Wimpey, Mclean Homes, Laing Homes & McAlpine Homes. B) Please advise if you have any accounts that currently have credits, write-on’s, or rate overpayments held on account for Taylor Wimpey and its subsidiaries; including but not limited to Bryant Homes, Taylor Woodrow, George Wimpey, Taylor Wimpey, Mclean Homes, Laing Homes & McAlpine Homes in relation to all domestic Council tax and Non-Domestic Business Rates rating matters (Yes or No will be fine but please specify NNDR or Ctax). If yes; B1) Please provide the account number, full account name, full account address including postcode, occupation dates start and end, the amount of credit due. (Ideally provide data by excel) C) Please can you confirm if any accounts are overdue or with enforcement agents (Yes or No will be fine but please specify NNDR or Ctax) If yes; C1) If Yes please provide the account number, full account name, full account address including postcode, occupation dates both start and end date if applicable, amount charged, and any fees. Response: Thank you for your request for information above, which we have dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Taylor Wimpey Plc Interim Results 2007
    Taylor Wimpey plc Interim Results 2007 1 Disclaimer This presentation is not intended, and does not, constitute or form part of, any offer, invitation or the solicitation of an offer to purchase, otherwise acquire, subscribe for, sell or otherwise dispose of, any securities in Taylor Wimpey plc or any other invitation or inducement to engage in investment activities, nor shall this presentation (or any part of it) nor the fact of its distribution form the basis of, or be relied on in connection with, any contract or investment decision. Past performance cannot be relied upon as a guide to future performance. Certain statements made in this presentation are forward looking statements. Such statements are based on current expectations and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from any expected future events or results referred to in these forward looking statements. 2 Interim Results for the half year ended 30 June 2007 Basis of preparation of pro forma information To assist investors in understanding the performance of the enlarged Taylor Wimpey plc Group, pro forma analyses have been prepared, in which the two underlying sets of financial and operational information for the six months to 30 June 2007 for Taylor Woodrow plc (“TW”) and the 26 weeks to 1 July 2007 for George Wimpey Plc (“GW”), have been aggregated to illustrate the effect of the merger of TW and GW as if the transaction had taken place on 1 January 2007. The results from the two businesses have been prepared on the basis of the existing accounting policies in the two Groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Building on Strong Foundations 2001 December 1 WP066 AR 2001 COVER V3 Tp 6/3/02 2:33 Pm Page FC2
    1 WP066 AR_2001 COVER_v3 tp 6/3/02 2:37 pm Page FC1 january february march Annual Report & Accounts 2001 april may june july august september october november Annual Report & Accounts 2001 building on strong foundations 2001 december 1 WP066 AR_2001 COVER_v3 tp 6/3/02 2:33 pm Page FC2 Our commitment to create and deliver value for our customers and shareholders has determined the ways in which we have brought changes to George Wimpey. By continuing to create real value we will achieve our goal of becoming a truly successful housebuilder measured by customers and shareholders alike. Contents Financial Highlights 02 Chairman’s Statement 03 Chief Executive’s Review 04 2001 – The Year That Changed George Wimpey 06 Operating and Financial Review 14 Environmental, Health and Safety Report 20 Board of Directors 21 Corporate Governance 22 Remuneration Report 24 Directors’ Report 27 Group Profit and Loss Account 30 Balance Sheet 31 Group Cash Flow Statement 32 Accounting Policies 33 Notes on the Accounts 34 Auditors’ Report 48 Five Year Review 49 Notice of Meeting 50 George Wimpey PLC Business Directory UK and US 53 Shareholder Information IBC George Wimpey Annual Report & Accounts 2001 During 2001 we have changed to create a new and rejuvenated business. We are rebuilding our Company to ensure that George Wimpey offers a long term secure and rewarding investment for our shareholders. George Wimpey Annual Report & Accounts 2001 02 Financial Highlights Year ended 31 December 2001 2000 Turnover £1895.9m £1702.0m Operating profit* £213.1m £170.2m
    [Show full text]