APPENDIX a an Investigation Into the Impact of Planned Changes to Rail Services in Wokingham Borough
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Submissions to the Call for Evidence from Organisations
Submissions to the call for evidence from organisations Ref Organisation RD - 1 Abbey Flyer Users Group (ABFLY) RD - 2 ASLEF RD - 3 C2c RD - 4 Chiltern Railways RD - 5 Clapham Transport Users Group RD - 6 London Borough of Ealing RD - 7 East Surrey Transport Committee RD – 8a East Sussex RD – 8b East Sussex Appendix RD - 9 London Borough of Enfield RD - 10 England’s Economic Heartland RD – 11a Enterprise M3 LEP RD – 11b Enterprise M3 LEP RD - 12 First Great Western RD – 13a Govia Thameslink Railway RD – 13b Govia Thameslink Railway (second submission) RD - 14 Hertfordshire County Council RD - 15 Institute for Public Policy Research RD - 16 Kent County Council RD - 17 London Councils RD - 18 London Travelwatch RD – 19a Mayor and TfL RD – 19b Mayor and TfL RD - 20 Mill Hill Neighbourhood Forum RD - 21 Network Rail RD – 22a Passenger Transport Executive Group (PTEG) RD – 22b Passenger Transport Executive Group (PTEG) – Annex RD - 23 London Borough of Redbridge RD - 24 Reigate, Redhill and District Rail Users Association RD - 25 RMT RD - 26 Sevenoaks Rail Travellers Association RD - 27 South London Partnership RD - 28 Southeastern RD - 29 Surrey County Council RD - 30 The Railway Consultancy RD - 31 Tonbridge Line Commuters RD - 32 Transport Focus RD - 33 West Midlands ITA RD – 34a West Sussex County Council RD – 34b West Sussex County Council Appendix RD - 1 Dear Mr Berry In responding to your consultation exercise at https://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london- assembly/investigations/how-would-you-run-your-own-railway, I must firstly apologise for slightly missing the 1st July deadline, but nonetheless I hope that these views can still be taken into consideration by the Transport Committee. -
Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
Wednesday Volume 547 4 July 2012 No. 25 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Wednesday 4 July 2012 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2012 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through The National Archives website at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/parliamentary-licence-information.htm Enquiries to The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 899 4 JULY 2012 900 House of Commons Welfare Reform 2. Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) Wednesday 4 July 2012 (Lab): What assessment he has made of the effects of welfare reform on Northern Ireland. [114371] The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen PRAYERS Paterson): The reforms that we have introduced give us a rare opportunity to transform our welfare system into one that is fair to all, looks after the most vulnerable in [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] society, and above all, always rewards work. Mr Clarke: In view of recent criticisms of the Work Oral Answers to Questions programme and the Prime Minister’s view that housing benefit for the under-25s should be discontinued, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the Government’s NORTHERN IRELAND policy is for youngsters? Is it to create jobs or simply to tolerate their exploitation? The Secretary of State was asked— Mr Paterson: I think the right hon. Gentleman Fuel Laundering underestimates the fact that the issue is devolved, and we are working closely with the devolved Minister with 1. -
Great Western Route Utilisation Strategy March 2010 Foreword
Great Western Route Utilisation Strategy March 2010 Foreword I am delighted to present the Great Western Development of this strategy has followed Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS), which sets a now well-established process. Initially, an out the strategic vision for the future of this analysis was carried out into the capacity and vital part of the rail network. As well as the capability of the existing network and train Great Western Main Line itself, the strategy services taking into account major changes covers the network north to Ashchurch and planned over the next 10 years. Future Bicester Town and south to Basingstoke, demand was then analysed with a number of Salisbury and Dorchester. “Gaps” identified and options to resolve these gaps appraised. Those which demonstrated This August will see the 175th anniversary the best value for money are included in of the Great Western Railway. Today, that the strategy. railway carries tens of millions of passengers a year through the Thames Valley, the West The dominant issue is the need to provide Country and Wales. Working closely with our sufficient capacity on peak services, train operating customers, Network Rail is specifically to and from London but also for delivering an ever improving service for those Bristol and Exeter. In the short to medium term passengers, and for freight users. the approach focuses on enabling longer trains to serve these routes, particularly through the More people are choosing to travel by train, introduction of IEP, which will increase capacity and high levels of growth are predicted through new rolling stock and an enhanced to continue, particularly around London timetable, but also through train lengthening Paddington and Bristol. -
Strategic Corridor Evidence Base
Transport Strategy for the South East ___ Strategic Corridor Evidence Base Client: Transport for the South East 10 December 2019 Our ref: 234337 Contents Page 4 Introduction 4 Definitions 5 Sources and Presentation 6 Strategic Corridor maps Appendices SE South East Radial Corridors SC South Central Radial Corridors SW South West Radial Corridors IO Inner Orbital Corridors OO Outer Orbital Corridors 3 | 10 December 2019 Strategic Corridor Evidence Base Introduction Introduction Definitions Table 1 | Strategic Corridor definitions 1 This document presents the evidence base 5 There are 23 Strategic Corridors in South East Area Ref Corridor Name M2/A2/Chatham Main Line underpinning the case for investment in the South England. These corridors were identified by SE1 (Dartford – Dover) East’s Strategic Corridors. It has been prepared for Transport for the South East, its Constituent A299/Chatham Main Line SE2 Transport for the South East (TfSE) – the emerging Authorities, and other stakeholders involved in the South (Faversham – Ramsgate) East M20/A20/High Speed 1/South Eastern Main Line SE3 Sub-National Transport Body for South East England development of the Economic Connectivity Review. (Dover – Sidcup) A21/Hastings Line – in support of its development of a Transport Since this review was published, the corridors have SE5 (Hastings – Sevenoaks) A22/A264/Oxted Line Strategy for South East England. been grouped into five areas. Some of the definitions SC1 (Crawley – Eastbourne) and names of some corridors cited in the Economic South M23/A23/Brighton -
The Cranleigh Railway Line
Reinstating Rail and River Routes from Guildford - The Cranleigh Railway Line This article relates to a planning application WA/2020/0004 dated 02 January 2020 and placed before Waverley Borough Council by the Wey and Arun Canal Trust. It concerns the conflicts of interest that arise between various organisations; together with a wider question about transport infrastructure and connectivity at both local and national levels Our colleagues at Gru- Guildford Railway Users Group recently alerted us that a Waverley Council decision is still pending for the planning application to which both Gru, The Guildford Society and others have objected. Since the application date, various transport reports and government announcements have also been made which we feel have a bearing on this decision. Opened In 1816, The Wey & Arun Junction Canal linked the Wey Navigation near Guildford to the south coast via the Arun Navigation. It was intended to provide a safe, efficient route from the River Thames and London to Portsmouth to carry goods supplying the naval dockyards. However, the arrival of the railways led to its demise and by 1871 it was formally closed and over the passing years the canal fell into a state of disrepair and non-use. WACT is gradually trying to reinstate the canal that used to connect these two navigable rivers between the Thames and the South Coast and have had loyal support and much success in restoring many miles of waterway for use by leisure craft. However, a number of canal sections remain to be joined up and the WACT have various projects towards this aim. -
London and South Coast Rail Corridor Study: Terms of Reference
LONDON & SOUTH COAST RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT APRIL 2016 LONDON & SOUTH COAST RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT FINAL Project no: PPRO 4-92-157 / 3511970BN Date: April 2016 WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff WSP House 70 Chancery Lane London WC2A 1AF Tel: +44 (0) 20 7314 5000 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7314 5111 www.wspgroup.com www.pbworld.com iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................1 2 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................2 2.1 STUDY CONTEXT ............................................................................................. 2 2.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE .................................................................................. 2 3 PROBLEM DEFINITION ...............................................................5 3.1 ‘DO NOTHING’ DEMAND ASSESSMENT ........................................................ 5 3.2 ‘DO NOTHING’ CAPACITY ASSESSMENT ..................................................... 7 4 REVIEWING THE OPTIONS ...................................................... 13 4.1 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT.................................................................... 13 4.2 RAIL SCHEME PROPOSALS ......................................................................... 13 4.3 PACKAGE DEFINITION .................................................................................. 19 5 THE BML UPGRADE PACKAGE .............................................. 21 5.1 THE PROPOSALS .......................................................................................... -
Growth Scenarios Report – Grazeley, Twyford/Ruscombe and Barkham
WOKINGHAM STRATEGIC GROWTH LOCATIONS Growth Scenarios Report - Grazeley, Twyford/Ruscombe and Barkham Square Prepared on behalf of WBC & WBDC By David Lock Associates & Peter Brett Associates June 2018 Wokingham Strategic Framework : Growth Scenarios Report Prepared on behalf of WBC & WBDC : By David Lock Associates & Peter Brett Associates : June 2018 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 Summary of key considerations 30 Growth Scenario 1: 15,000 Homes 34 1.0 INTRODUCTION 6 Concept Plan 34 Purpose of the Strategic Framework Access & Movement 36 Commission 6 Infrastructure requirements 37 Relationship to Green Belt and agricultural Growth Scenario 2: 10,000 Homes 40 land quality 6 Concept Plan 40 Study Brief and Scope 7 Access & Movement 42 Role and Structure of this Report 8 Infrastructure requirements 42 2.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY 10 Alternative 10,000 Home Growth Scenario 43 Growth Scenario 3: 5,000 Homes 44 Stage 1 Project Set-up and Baseline Concept Plan 46 Assessments 10 Access & Movement 46 Site Environmental Studies 10 Infrastructure requirements 46 Baseline Viability 10 Stage 2 Generating Growth Scenarios 10 5.0 BARKHAM SQUARE 48 Technical Workshops 10 Background and Analysis 48 Green and Blue 10 Site Environmental Studies: Summary Transport and Environmental Health 11 Findings 48 Community Wellbeing 11 Flooding & Drainage 48 Utilities 12 Transport & Highways 48 Community Workshops 12 Air Quality 48 Next Stages 13 Noise and Vibration 48 3.0 BASELINE VIABILITY 14 Geotechnical 49 Waste 50 Commercial Property Market 14 Agricultural Land 50 Residential -
Dorking Transport Package (Phase 1) Submission to Coast to Capital LEP
Dorking Transport Package (Phase 1) Submission to Coast to Capital LEP Surrey County Council December 2014 Coast to Capital Local Transport Body Sustainability and Resilience Schemes Application Form WHO - Scheme Promoter and Partners LTA/ Surrey County Council Scheme name & Dorking Proposer: [District/ Transport Borough]: Package (Phase 1) Mole Valley District Contact Lyndon Mendes Partners [in joint First Great details: [email protected] submissions]: Western WHAT & WHERE – Outline description, scope & maps Type of scheme: Sustainability package Scheme description The project is a package of sustainable transport centred on Dorking Deepdene station. It will improve access to the station, inter- connectivity between this station and Dorking main station, improve road safety and support modal shift away from the private car. C2C Dorking Transport Package (December 2014) Page 1 of 26 Maps HOW MUCH & WHEN – Estimated construction costs and construction timetable Est. Costs: £800,000 Start and end of June 2015 – Phase 1 construction: March 2016 Spend 2015-16: 2016-17: 2017-18 2018-19: 2019-20: 2020-21: Profile (£ million) (£ million) (£ million) (£ million) (£ million) (£ million) £0.8 Funding C2C Capital grant funding £600,000 expectations First Great Western £200,000 (see Annex D First Great Western letter). (List sources of funds) C2C Dorking Transport Package (December 2014) Page 2 of 26 WHY IT SHOULD BE FUNDED Summary of the Key Scheme Benefits Structure of the key scheme benefits 1. Introduction and need for the project (Annex A) 2. Dorking stations phased approach 3. Interchange and Wayfinding (Annex B) 4. Dorking Deepdene and Dorking main stations -walking and cycling improvements 5. -
Glossary of Terms
While Oxfordshire County Council has made every effort to ensure the information in this document is accurate, it does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of the information contained in this document and it cannot accept liability for any loss or damages of any kind resulting from reliance on the information or guidance this document contains. © Copyright, Oxfordshire County Council, 2012 Copyright in the typographical arrangements rests with Oxfordshire County Council. This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for non- commercial research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The title must be acknowledged as copyright and the title of the publication specified. Unless specified, all maps, tables, diagrams and graphs in this report are a product of Oxfordshire County Council. Editorial Acknowledgement - Adrian Saunders, James Llewellyn, Ed Webster & John Disley. ● ● In January 2012, the Council‟s Cabinet approved a version of the draft Oxfordshire Rail Strategy & Delivery Plan for public and stakeholder consultation. The consultation was launched on 6 February and was made available on the Council‟s e- consultation portal, making it possible for responses to be submitted using a questionnaire online or by returning a pre-formatted document in the post. The consultation lasted for six weeks and ended on 16 March 2012. Invitations to take part in the consultation were sent to 650 individuals or organisations that have an interest in the rail network, including district and parish councils, local businesses using the railway as part of the business activity, Oxfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership, interest groups, such as Oxfordshire Unlimited and Railfuture, and council staff involved in planning, strategy, infrastructure and economic growth. -
Great Western Railway by Email
Marcus Clements Head of Consumer Policy Rail Markets and Economics 09 March 2020 Matthew Golton Managing Director Great Western Railway By Email Dear Matthew, Approval of Great Western Railway’s (GWR) Accessible Travel Policy (Condition 5 of the Station Licence and GB Statement of National Regulatory Conditions: Passenger) Thank you for submitting GWR’s draft Accessible Travel Policy (ATP) for approval. I confirm that we have reviewed the ATP against the 2019 “Accessible Travel Policy Guidance for Train and Station Operators” (the guidance). As part of our review process we also sought views on the draft ATP from the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and Transport Focus and had several exchanges with GWR to clarify its commitments. I can confirm that GWR’s ATP now meets the requirements of Condition 5 of its station licence and GB Statement of National Regulatory Conditions: Passenger (SNRP). During the course of our exchanges, we discussed a number of commitments to implementing improvements beyond the limits of GWR’s current franchise term, which ends on 31 March 2020. These must be included in the revised ATP by 20 April 2020, should GWR continue to operate services under a new contract: The creation of a regular forum for engagement with disabled people in the North by April 2020, as well as specific details on the plans to actively promote Passenger Assist, including placing the passenger leaflet in prominent locations. You have indicated in discussions that GWR will use the forum to help inform this work; Publication and dissemination of a revised passenger leaflet within 8 weeks of the start of any new franchise. -
Limitation Varies by Service / Operator) Lismore Scotrail Caledonian Sleeper
Stromness (Orkney) Scrabster TAXI Thurso Georgemas Junction ScotRail Wick Scotscalder c2c Altnabreac Forsinard Kinbrace Caledonian Great Britain Kildonan Sleeper Helmsdale Brora Tarbert (Harris); Lochmaddy (North Uist) Dunrobin Castle summer only Chiltern Golspie Rogart Stornaway (Lewis) Railways Lairg Invershin Uig Culrain CrossCountry Ardgay Ullapool Tain ScotRail Fearn East Midlands Invergordon Alness Trains Achanalt Lochluichart Garve Dingwall Achnasheen Conon Bridge Eurostar Achnashellach Muir of Ord Beauly Strathcarron Inverness Gatwick Airport ISLE OF SKYE Nairn Forres Elgin Inverness Express Attadale Dalcross / Inverness Airport planned Kirkwall (Orkney); Lerwick (Shetland Isles) Keith Caledonian Sleeper Stromeferry ScotRail ScotRail London Grand North Eastern Railway Huntly Duncraig ScotRail Central national rail Plockton Carrbridge Insch Duirinish Great Kyle of Lochalsh Northern Inverurie Aviemore Greater Kintore train operators planned Anglia and metro systems Kingussie Aberdeen Airport Dyce Great Western Railway Newtonmore CrossCountry Aberdeen London North Eastern Armadale Railway Jamieson's Quay Aberdeen ScotRail Heathrow Caledonian Caledonian Portlethen Sleeper Sleeper ScotRail Express Loch Eil Spean Bridge Roy Bridge Dalwhinnie Morar Beasdale Glenfinnan Outward Bound Banavie Stonehaven Small Isles: Muck, Eigg, Rum, Canna; May 2019 Lochboisdale (South Uist) Mallaig Arisaig Lochailort Locheilside Corpach Fort William Laurencekirk Hull Trains Tulloch Montrose Blair Atholl Island Line Arbroath Lochboisdale (South Uist); Castlebay -
External Email Hello Andrew Attached the Full Sound Test Report and Our
From: Peter Izod <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 2:28 PM To: Andrew Chugg Cc: Peter Izod Subject: APPLICATION 162950 / Condition 13 Attachments: Report - Wargrave Rd.pdf; 3765SOUND.pdf External Email CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL EMAIL - STOP & THINK before clicking a link or opening attachments. Hello Andrew Attached the full Sound Test report and our Summary Sheet. Appropriate measures will be implemented including heat recovery. Regards PETER IZOD Click here to report this email as spam. 1 Page | 1 37 Wargrave Rd, Twyford, RG10 9PB 12th October 2020 ISSUE 01 NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Email: [email protected] Tel: 0207 101 9669 Mobile: 07957 553188 Company Registration No. 0249971 CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3 2 NOISE CRITERIA ……………………………………….............................................................. 3 Page | 2 2.1 NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (2018) ……………………………..………3 2.2 NOISE POLICY STATEMENT FOR ENGLAND ………………………………………………...…4 2.3 PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE ……………………………………………………………………….4 2.4 ACOUSTICS VENTILATION AND OVERHEATING ……………………………………………..5 2.5 BRITISH STANDARD 8233:2014 ……………………………………………………………………..5 3 SITE SURVEYS.............................................................................................................6 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ………………………………………………………………………………………..6 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE SURVEY PROCEDURE ……………………………………………….7 3.3 EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………………………………………………………7