DOCSLIB.ORG

(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee, 09/06/2016 14:00

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee, 09/06/2016 14:00 Meeting: Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee Date/Time: Thursday, 9 June 2016 at 2.00 pm Location: Sparkenhoe Committee Room, County Hall, Glenfield Contact: Mr. B. Holihead (Tel. 0116 3056339) Email: [email protected] Membership Mr. I. E. G. Bentley CC Mr. Max Hunt CC Mr. D. C. Bill MBE CC Mr. D. Jennings CC Mr. G. A. Boulter CC Mr. A. E. Pearson CC Mr. J. G. Coxon CC Mr. L. E. Yates CC Mr. S. J. Hampson CC Please note: this meeting will be filmed for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s web site at http://www.leics.gov.uk/webcast – Notices will be on display at the meeting explaining the arrangements. AGENDA Item Report by 1. Appointment of Chairman. To note that Mr. D. Jennings CC was nominated as Chairman elect to the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee at the Annual Meeting of the County Council held on 18 May 2016. 2. Election of Deputy Chairman. 3. Minutes of the meeting held on 7 April 2016. (Pages 5 - 10) 4. Question Time. 5. Questions asked by members under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5). 6. To advise of any other items which the Chairman has decided to take as urgent elsewhere on the agenda. Democratic Services ◦ Chief Executive’s Department ◦ Leicestershire County Council ◦ County Hall Glenfield ◦ Leicestershire ◦ LE3 8RA ◦ Tel: 0116 232 3232 ◦ Email: [email protected] www.twitter.com/leicsdemocracy www.facebook.com/leicsdemocracy www.leics.gov.uk/local_democracy 7. Declarations of interest in respect of items on the agenda. 8. Declarations of the Party Whip in accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 16. 9. Presentation of Petitions under Standing Order 36. 10. Recycling and Household Waste Site Director of (Pages 11 - 48) Commissioning Options. Environment and Transport 11. Quarter 4 Performance Report. Chief Executive (Pages 49 - 56) and Director of Environment and Transport 12. Draft Rail Strategy for Leicester and Director of (Pages 57 - 128) Leicestershire. Environment and Transport 13. Leicester to Burton Railway Line. Director of (Pages 129 - 226) Environment and Transport 14. Final Report of the Scrutiny Review Panel on (Pages 227 - 276) the Market Harborough Line Speed Improvements. A copy of the final report is attached for the Committee’s consideration before submission to the Cabinet for approval on the 17th June 2016. 15. Park and Ride Performance. Director of (Pages 277 - 288) Environment and Transport 16. Date of next meeting. The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled to take place on Wednesday 7 September 2016 at 10.00am. 17. Any other items which the Chairman has decided to take as urgent. QUESTIONING BY MEMBERS OF OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY Members serving on Overview and Scrutiny have a key role in providing constructive yet robust challenge to proposals put forward by the Cabinet and Officers. One of the most important skills is the ability to extract information by means of questions so that it can help inform comments and recommendations from Overview and Scrutiny bodies. Members clearly cannot be expected to be experts in every topic under scrutiny and nor is there an expectation that they so be. Asking questions of ‘experts’ can be difficult and intimidating but often posing questions from a lay perspective would allow members to obtain a better perspective and understanding of the issue at hand. Set out below are some key questions members may consider asking when considering reports on particular issues. The list of questions is not intended as a comprehensive list but as a general guide. Depending on the issue under consideration there may be specific questions members may wish to ask. Key Questions: Why are we doing this? Why do we have to offer this service? How does this fit in with the Council’s priorities? Which of our key partners are involved? Do they share the objectives and is the service to be joined up? Who is providing this service and why have we chosen this approach? What other options were considered and why were these discarded? Who has been consulted and what has the response been? How, if at all, have their views been taken into account in this proposal? If it is a new service: Who are the main beneficiaries of the service? (could be a particular group or an area) What difference will providing this service make to them – What will be different and how will we know if we have succeeded? How much will it cost and how is it to be funded? What are the risks to the successful delivery of the service? If it is a reduction in an existing service: Which groups are affected? Is the impact greater on any particular group and, if so, which group and what plans do you have to help mitigate the impact? When are the proposals to be implemented and do you have any transitional arrangements for those who will no longer receive the service? What savings do you expect to generate and what was expected in the budget? Are there any redundancies? What are the risks of not delivering as intended? If this happens, what contingency measures have you in place? This page is intentionally left blank 5 Agenda Item 3 Minutes of a meeting of the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee held at County Hall, Glenfield on Thursday, 7 April 2016. PRESENT Mr. D. Jennings CC (in the Chair) Mr. I. E. G. Bentley CC Mr. S. J. Hampson CC Mr. D. C. Bill MBE CC Mr. Max Hunt CC Mr. G. A. Boulter CC Mrs. J. Richards CC Mr. J. G. Coxon CC Mr. L. E. Yates CC In attendance. Mr. B. Pain CC, Cabinet Lead Member for Waste Management (minutes 57 - 59). Mrs. P. Posnett CC, Cabinet Lead Member for Environmental Matters (minutes 57 – 60). 50. Minutes of the meeting held on 21 January 2016. The minutes of the meeting held on 21 January 2016 were taken as read, confirmed and signed. 51. Question Time. The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 35. 52. Questions asked by members under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5). Mr. M. Hunt CC asked the following questions under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5):- i. “Would the Chair welcome the work to produce a Parking Policy currently being conducted by the County Council and outline the key milestones in the project, including the consultation stages? ii. Would he ask the Director to include an appraisal of the use of Public Spaces Protection Orders, under the 2014 Act, to control dangerous parking, including where it relates to routes to schools and areas around school entrances.” The Chairman replied as follows:- i. “I welcome the work that is currently being undertaken by Environment and Transportation officers on the development of a County-Wide Parking Strategy. The first stage of this work includes a review of existing parking related policies as well as undertaking parking studies in the larger towns and urban areas of the county. The parking studies will initially concentrate on central Hinckley, Loughborough, Market Harborough, before moving on to other larger towns and urban areas in late summer. The findings of this study work will feed into the development of the parking strategy and associated schemes and it is currently 6 planned to consult on the new draft strategy and associated schemes starting in the summer of 2017. ii. Public Spaces Protection Orders, under the 2014 Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 are a District Council power and not a power that can be exercised by the County Council. However, as part of this work to develop the County-Wide Parking Strategy officers will be consulting with District Councils and the potential use of Public Spaces Protection Orders in partnership with the Districts will be considered.” 53. To advise of any other items which the Chairman has decided to take as urgent elsewhere on the agenda. There were no urgent items for consideration. 54. Declarations of interest in respect of items on the agenda. The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to declare any interest in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting. No declarations were made. 55. Declarations of the Party Whip in accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 16. There were no declarations of the party whip. 56. Presentation of Petitions under Standing Order 36. The Chief Executive reported that no petitions had been received under Standing Order 36. 57. Environment and Transport Interim Commissioning Strategy. The Committee received a report of the Director of Environment and Transport outlining the Environment and Transport Interim Commissioning Strategy. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 8’, is filed with these minutes. In addition to the information contained in the report, the Committee was provided with a more detailed Capital Programme which would be considered by the Cabinet. A copy of the detailed Capital Programme is filed with these minutes. In introducing the report the Director advised that the Interim Commissioning Strategy (herein referred to as 'the Strategy’) formed part of a Council-wide approach to evidence- based commissioning, and as a result all departments were required to produce a Commissioning Strategy. The Strategy consolidated the key priorities of the previous Leicestershire Transport Plan 3 (LTP3) and the Environment Strategy. A final Commissioning Strategy would be produced by 2018 which would be developed following consultation with partners. The Committee was advised that Appendix A to the Strategy contained a mistake on page 7. There would be work to develop an infrastructure package to support the 7 Loughborough Science and Enterprise Park and housing growth west of Loughborough and in Shepshed, and not at Junction 23a as referred to in the action plan.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Railfuture Response to National Infrastructure
    RAILFUTURE RESPONSE TO NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE COMMISSION RAIL NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE MIDLANDS AND THE NORTH – CALL FOR EVIDENCE FOLLOWING INTERIM REPORT Contribution from Railfuture East Midlands Branch – August 2020 National Infrastructure Commission | Rail Needs Assessment for the Midlands and the North - Interim report https://www.nic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/RNA-Interim-Report-Final.pdf Introduction: The Railfuture response dated 29th May 2020 to the first round of this consultation https://www.railfuture.org.uk/display2324 placed considerable emphasis on freight. In contributing to the August call for evidence, we in East Midlands Branch: Re-submit our May 2020 Rf EM Branch submission for previous NIC RNA call for evidence. This is on pp6-15 below in red text with a few subsequent additions in blue. Attempt to answer the NIC’s broad questions Q1 to Q4 below. References are to the pages and tables in the NIC’s Interim Report (see header.) Prepared by: Steve Jones, Branch Secretary, Railfuture East Midlands Branch [email protected] including contributions from members of EM Branch. Question 1: Please provide specific sources for evidence that the Commission could use in estimating costs and the impact of proposals on journey time and capacity. For schemes already proposed other than by Railfuture, such as those listed on p36, much information is already available from Network Rail, SNTBs (TfN, Midlands Connect), local and combined authorities, TOCs, DfT. Campaign organisations. For additional schemes put forward by Railfuture, further work would need to be done, though campaign groups such as SENRUG, SELRAP, MEMRAP and CRIL may have initial estimates for specific lines or areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Leicester Area Strategic Advice 2020
    How can growth and partners’ aspirations be accommodated in the Leicester area over the coming decades? Leicester Area Strategic Advice July 2020 02 Contents 01: Foreword 03 02: Executive Summary 04 03: Continuous Modular Strategic Planning 07 04: Leicester Area Strategic Context 08 05: Delivering Additional Future Services 12 06: Leicester Area Capacity 16 07: Accommodating Future Services 22 08: Recommendations and Next Steps 27 Photo credits: Front cover - lower left: Jeff Chapman Front cover - lower right: Jamie Squibbs Leicester Area Strategic Advice July 2020 03 01 Foreword The Leicester Area Strategic Advice forms part of the The report was produced collaboratively with inputs railway industry’s Long-Term Planning Process covering from key, interested organisations and considers the the medium-term and long-term planning horizon. impact of planned major programmes such as High Investment in the railway is an aid to long-term Speed 2 (HS2), and the strategies and aspirations of sustainable growth for the Leicester area, supporting bodies such as Leicester City Council, the Department economic, social and environmental objectives. of Transport (DfT), Midlands Connect and the Train Network Rail has worked collaboratively with rail and Freight Operating Companies. industry stakeholders and partners to develop long- The recommendations from this report support term plans for a safe, reliable and efficient railway to Network Rail’s focus of putting passengers first by support economic growth across Britain. aiming to increase the number of direct services from This study has considered the impact of increased Leicester Station, supporting freight growth and demand for passenger services in the medium and improving performance and satisfaction with the rail long term, starting from a baseline of today’s railway, network.
    [Show full text]
  • Rail Map REOP7 15.9
    1 2 A2B Drumgelloch - Bathgate Thurso reopening in progress due Dec 2010 by the Scottish Parliament Georgemas Wick 3 GARL Glasgow Airport new rail link by the Scottish Parliament November 2002 due to open 2012 but cancelled 2009 Passenger rail Helmsdale 4 Unrecorded, refer to 63 Golspie 5 Edinburgh suburban line reopening Lairg 59 November 2002, cancelled 2009 Dornoch 6 Penicuik reopening proposal network diagram November 2002 Tain Garve 7 Borders reopening under planning Invergordon by the Scottish Parliament Dingwall 8 Blythe & Tyne and Leamside lines reopening proposal September 2002 and Feb 2008 Nairn Elgin Under construction Also Ashington & Blythe and Washington proposals by Keith ATOC Connecting Communities June 2009 Achnasheen Inverness Strathcarron Inverness Forres 9 Penrith - Keswick reopening proposal 64 Airport Huntly Plockton 10 Stanhope - Bishops Auckland Stromeferry reopening proposal or proposed November 2002 Kyle of Lochalsh Aviemore Inverurie 11 Pickering - Rillington reopening to enable through service over Yorkshire Moors railway Kingussie Dyce 12 Wensleydale Railway: Northallerton - Leaming Bar - SCOTRAIL Leyburn - Redmire Principal routes November 2002 Regional routes 13 Rippon reopening proposal Spean Aberdeen Local routes July 2004 Glenfinnan Bridge Mallaig Limited service 14 Grassington branch reopening proposal September 2002 Blair Atholl Fort William Stonehaven Under construction 15 Skipton - Colne reopening proposal Planned or proposed* September 2002 Pitlochry New station 16 York - Beverley reopening proposal
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Development Strategy 2016 - 2020
    Economic Development Strategy 2016 - 2020 South Derbyshire Changing for the better Contents Foreword 3 Executive Summary 4 Introduction 6 Recent Events 8 Overview 11 Way Forward 15 Vision, Objectives and Ambitions 20 Acknowledgements The Economic Development team at South Derbyshire District Council would like to thank all those who have participated in the development of this Strategy. Further Information Economic Development, South Derbyshire District Council Civic Way, Swadlincote, Derbyshire, DE11 0AH, United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 1283 595755 Fax: +44 (0) 1283 595720 Email: [email protected] Web: www.south-derbys.gov.uk Photographs kindly supplied by featured businesses and Christopher Beech Photography, Louise Galdes Photography and Tony Summers 2 South Derbyshire Economic Development Strategy 2016 - 2020 Foreword South Derbyshire District Council’s Corporate Plan 2016-2021 sets out a Vision to make the District a better place to live, work and visit. ‘Progress’ is one of its four key themes and central to this is the continued support and development of the local economy. The South Derbyshire Economic Development Strategy will directly contribute to the achievement of the Progress objectives. These focus on economic development, inward investment, The National Forest, tourism and town centre growth. In order to further build on our significant achievements, the Council will continue to help grow and diversify our strong local economy to keep South Derbyshire well and truly open for business. This includes harnessing the potential of The National Forest. We will maximise opportunities for the future by encouraging the formation of new enterprises as well as the continued growth of existing businesses, helping to increase visitor spend, and attracting inward investment.
    [Show full text]
  • Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny
    13 ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 9 JUNE 2016 LEICESTER TO BURTON RAILWAY LINE Comments received from Dr. T. Eynon CC As Local Member for Coalville, I welcome the report by AECOM into the potential costs and benefits of reinstating passenger transport along the Leicester to Burton rail corridor. I especially welcome AECOM's statement that (7.4.3) "further work may be beneficial to robustly support decisions relating to the progress of the scheme. In particular, use of the updated LLITM model may generate additional demand and a detailed bottom-up costing exercise may reduce the capital costs". I am concerned at the conclusions being drawn by the County Council. Further work is needed It goes without saying that "costs would need to be met by central government through the submission of a robust business case demonstrating sound value for money in terms of transport economics and wider economic benefits." (Briefing notes #10). The Council is going beyond the evidence in the report when it attempts to persuade Members that "The study has identified that such a business case could not be produced." (Briefing notes #10). The evidence provided by AECOM does not support the County Council's advice lto members that "the County Council should undertake no further investigatory work on the proposal at this time." (Briefing notes #2b). Far from concluding that no further progress is possible, this Council should work regionally and strategically, using innovative technologies, to assess whether or not a satisfactory cost benefit ratio can be achieved. I urge members of the Environment and Transport Scrutiny Committee to examine the evidence provided by AECOM, noting the final conclusions, and draw their own conclusions.
    [Show full text]
  • Interim Coalville Transport Strategy (ICTS)
    Interim Coalville Transport Strategy (ICTS) September 2021 Contents 1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………….. 3 1.1 What is the Coalville Transport Strategy (CTS) ? .................................................. 3 1.2 The CTS refresh ................................................................................................... 3 1.3 CTS structure ........................................................................................................ 4 1.4 COVID-19 statement ............................................................................................. 4 2. Scope of the CTS ……………………………………………………………………………. 5 2.1 The CTS geographical area .................................................................................. 5 2.2 Infrastructure scope .............................................................................................. 5 3. Challenges…………………………………………………………………………….…….. 6 3.1 Government focus on economic growth and housing ............................................ 6 3.2 Existing transport challenges ................................................................................ 6 3.3 Future growth challenges ...................................................................................... 7 3.4 Challenges associated with HS2 Phase Two ........................................................ 8 4. Previous work ……………………………………………………………………………… 9 4.1 Work done to date ................................................................................................. 9 4.2 Work to refresh
    [Show full text]
  • Comments by Max Hunt , Item 48. PDF 63 KB
    PAPER F CABINET - 8 th SEPTEMBER 2009 LEICESTER TO BURTON RAILWAY LINE Ivanhoe Line Stage II: Scheme Re-Appraisal COMMENTS FROM MAX HUNT CC ON BEHALF OF THE LABOUR GROUP Our greatest concern with this report is that it seems to have ignored the new report “Connecting Communities” from the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC), possibly because the work overlapped. That Report identified the Leicester to Burton/National Forest Rail Line (NFL) as one of 14 disused rail lines where there is a positive business case for a new passenger service. Two conflicting studies ATOC vs LCC Whilst both reports agreed on capital costs, the ATOC report, published in June of this year, took account of planned growth in the County in terms of population, housing and industrial output. Their conclusion was that the key economic indicator for the NFL, known as the benefits to costs ratio ( BCR), was 1.3. This means, of course, that one gets more back than one puts in and contrasts markedly with an older report prepared by the County Council which was initially drafted in July 2008 which claimed the BCR was only 1 (15.4) Both cannot be right, but the Train Operator’s report is more up to date. It may also be argued that they know more about the economics of running a railway that County Councillors! However the case is further strengthened if one uses the formula based on Operating Costs (OPEX). ATOC also state that it is now more common to use a formulae based on operating costs only (OPEX), citing recent decisions to reopen the Ebbw Vale and Scottish Borders lines.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing the Public Transport Network Serving the East
    Developing the Public Transport Network serving the East Midlands Enterprise Gateway: The Way Forward Developing the Public Transport Network serving the East Midlands Enterprise Gateway: The Way Forward December 2015 Report Sponsored by Leicestershire County Council and North West Leicestershire District Council Report Prepared by Integrated Transport Planning Ltd Stakeholders and Contributors: • Arriva Midlands North • Castle Donington Parish Council • Castle Donington Volunteer Centre • Derbyshire County Council • DHL • Donington Park • East Midlands Airport • Kinchbus • Leicestershire County Council • Marks and Spencer • Midlands Classic • North West Leicestershire District Council • Roxhill • South Derbyshire District Council • Trent Barton Developing the Public Transport Network serving the East Midlands Enterprise Gateway: The Way Forward Introduction This document provides a five-year framework for future development This framework document starts with an overview of current and of the public transport network serving the East Midlands Enterprise potential future employment opportunities in the EMEG, together Gateway (EMEG) area. It has been developed on behalf of the with other trends and developments that are likely to affect the future Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership (LLEP) East public transport network. It then presents issues and data associated Midlands Enterprise Gateway Access to Work Task and Finish (T&F) with the potential future workforce. Public transport links currently Group. The document has been developed building on consultation serving the EMEG are presented, along with various analyses that help with the T&F Group members and other key stakeholders (including to identify gaps in provision. Issues associated with filling those gaps local authorities and transport operators), as well as a review of are then discussed, including likely funding sources and constraints, current transport networks, local growth strategies, economic plans and current priorities.
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2019
    South Derbyshire South Infrastructure Delivery Derbyshire District Plan Council Planning and Strategic Housing January 2020 Our Environment | Our People | Our Future Page Intentionally Blank South Derbyshire District Council Infrastructure Delivery Plan January 2020 Contents 1. Introduction 2. National Policy Context 3. A Spatial Portrait of South Derbyshire 4. Local Policy Context 5. Local Plan Strategic Objectives 6. Local Plan Spatial Strategy 7. Scope of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan 8. Methodology 9. Delivery Mechanism 10. Monitoring and Review Process 11. Development Strategy for South Derbyshire 12. Next Steps 13. Water and Flooding Infrastructure 14. Waste Infrastructure 15. Transport Infrastructure 16. Energy Infrastructure 17. Communications Infrastructure 18. Sport, Recreation, Open Space and Social Infrastructure 19. Health and Emergency Services Infrastructure 20. Education Infrastructure 21. Environmental Infrastructure 3 1 Introduction 1.1. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) sets out the infrastructure required to support the level of development proposed in South Derbyshire’s Adopted Local Plan (2011-2028). 1.2. Over the Plan Period (up to 2028) there will be significant levels of growth in terms of housing, retail and employment and it is essential for the Council and its partners to deliver the services necessary to achieve timely, sustainable and effective infrastructure to meet the needs of all residents in the future. 1.3. The information in this document has been produced in collaboration with various infrastructure providers operating in the District, as discussed in more detail in section 8. 1.4. The 2008 Planning Act1 and subsequent Regulations define infrastructure as including roads and other transport facilities; flood defences; schools and other educational facilities; medical facilities; sporting and recreational facilities; open spaces; and affordable housing.
    [Show full text]
  • HIGH SPEED UK RAILFREIGHT STRATEGY the UK High Speed Rail Initiative Has Been Heralded As a Major Opportunity for Railfreight
    HIGH SPEED UK RAILFREIGHT STRATEGY The UK high speed rail initiative has been heralded as a major opportunity for railfreight. The accepted wisdom, advanced in support of the HS2 proposals, is that the transfer of express passenger flows from congested existing intercity routes to new high speed lines will free up capacity which can be exploited by freight traffic, as well as local passenger traffic. HS2 Railfreight Issues However, the potential gains for railfreight are hugely compromised by HS2’s incomplete coverage, its fundamental lack of capacity and its inefficient configuration. With HS2 configured as a London-focussed ‘Y’, it can do nothing to enhance transpennine route capacity or the restricted structure gauge that greatly hinders the passage of container traffic; and it should be noted that more local initiatives such as the Northern Hub will do very little to promote cross-Manchester freight flows, with all transpennine flows compelled to pass through either Victoria or Piccadilly stations. As for capacity, with HS2’s London-West Midlands ‘stem’ only comprising 2 tracks, it cannot provide the extra train paths necessary to access all the major cities (such as Coventry, Stoke, Leicester and Derby) which are currently integral to the UK intercity network. Although HS2 plans currently show the express services to these cities reduced in frequency, and regressing to ‘regional’ status with more stops added (thereby creating the capacity for more freight traffic), a more probable outcome is that local political pressure will result in the retention of many of these express services. The likely consequence for overall network capacity is a severe ‘double negative’; the express trains will be poorly-filled due to abstraction of much of the core passenger flows onto the high speed line, and their continued operation will prevent ‘paths’ being released for freight traffic.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7: Transport & Traffic Management
    Chapter 7: Transport & Traffic Management CHAPTER 7: TRANSPORT & TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Introduction 7.1 The existing transport network within the plan area relies on two major communication corridors along radial routes extending out from the Leicester urban area. The Soar Valley corridor including the A6, the London-Sheffield mainline railway, and the Grand Union Canal links Leicester and Loughborough. Along the Wreake Valley corridor run sections of the A607/A46 roads and that section of the Birmingham-Peterborough railway line between Leicester and Melton Mowbray. Elsewhere a network of minor roads connect smaller villages to the main road corridors, within and outside the Borough, and to the urban areas. The Great Central Railway between Birstall and Loughborough currently fulfils a recreational role only. 7.2 The land use policies and proposals of this Plan are closely related to future transportation requirements. Over the plan period there will continue to be a need for new roads and highway improvements, but increasingly an emphasis will be placed on providing for better public transport, safer cycling and pedestrian routes. The intention is to achieve an effective transport network providing choice in the means of transport for people and goods in the plan area with the aim of reducing reliance on private cars. This will only be achievable through the careful co-ordination of transport and land use planning. Government Guidance 7.3 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires all plans to include land-use policies relevant to the management of traffic and also empowers local planning authorities to keep under review matters which may be expected to affect the development of their area.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Trains Refranchise Report
    REMAPPING OF THE CENTRAL TRAINS FRANCHISE PASSENGER REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DELIVERY OF RAIL SERVICES IN THE EAST MIDLANDS TRAVELWATCH East Midlands MAY 2006 TRAVELWATCH EAST MIDLANDS REMAPPING OF THE CENTRAL TRAINS FRANCHISE CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 3. SEEKING THE PASSENGER VIEW 3.1 THE PASSENGER SURVEY 3.1.1 Methodology 3.1.2. Results from ‘top 10 priorities’ question 3.1.2.1 Results from the East Midlands Survey 3.1.2.2 Comparison of results: East Midlands and West Midlands surveys 3.1.2.3 Comparison of results East midlands and National surveys 3.1.2.4 Conclusions from comparing survey results 3.1.3. Results from ‘paired choice’ question 3.1.4. Other comments 3.2. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS 3.3. DISCUSSIONS WITH STAKEHOLDERS 4. THE TRAVEL MARKET 4.1 INTER-CITY TO LONDON 4.2 INTER-URBAN AND REGIONAL 4.3 LOCAL-SUBURBAN 4.4. LOCAL-RURAL Page 2 TRAVELWATCH EAST MIDLANDS REMAPPING OF THE CENTRAL TRAINS FRANCHISE 4.5 INTER-REGIONAL 5. ROUTE SPECIFIC ISSUES 5.1 ROUTES ALLOCATED TO THE EAST MIDLANDS FRANCHISE 5.1.1 St Pancras – Derby / Nottingham / Sheffield / Leeds 5.1.2 Liverpool – Nottingham – Norwich 5.1.3 Matlock – Derby 5.1.4 Crewe – Skegness 5.1.5 Leicester – Loughborough – Lincoln 5.1.6 Worksop – Nottingham 5.1.7 Cleethorpes – Lincoln – Newark / Nottingham 5.1.8 Doncaster – Lincoln – Peterborough 5. 2 ROUTES ALLOCATED TO THE WEST MIDLANDS FRANCHISE 5.2.1 Birmingham –Leicester 5.2.2 Euston – Northampton 5.2.3 Birmingham – Coventry / Northampton 5.2.4 Coventry – Nuneaton 5.3 ROUTES ALLOCATED TO THE CROSS COUNTRY FRANCHISE 5.3.1 Cardiff / Hereford – Nottingham 5.3.2 Birmingham – Stansted Airport 5.3.3 Birmingham-Derby-Sheffield (existing Cross Country route) 5.4 OTHER ASPIRATIONS 6.
    [Show full text]