Agenda Item No. 7 – Appendix C New railway station on the Arun Valley Line north of Horsham - Targeted Engagement June/July 2015 Response summary 13 responses were received in response to the letter sent by the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport seeking views on the station proposals. Response comments were received from: - 4 West Sussex County Councillors; - 1 Borough Council; - 5 Parish Councils; - 2 rail user and interest groups; and - a response from Southern Railway. Four responses each expressed a preference for one of the station proposals, whilst five responses either expressed no preference or requested more information. The following table summarises each of the responses. Name/Organisation Summary of comments Councillor Peter Support expressed for Kilnwood Vale proposal. Lamb, Northgate - The response notes potential larger customer base for and Three Bridges, North Horsham station but highlights a greater potential Crawley for North Horsham residents to access existing stations. - The response identifies that residents of Kilnwood Vale have constrained road access to access Ifield and Crawley stations via the A264. Councillor Sue Support expressed for Kilnwood Vale proposal. Mullins, Gossops - The response notes that a station at this location would Green and Ifield have the biggest impact on transport arrangements for East, Crawley residents of this large new development helping to address issues with commuting on the A264 into and through Crawley. Councillor Bob Support expressed for Kilnwood Vale proposal. Lanzer, - The response notes potential for additional Maidenbower, development in future around the consented Kilnwood Crawley Vale development and benefits to the substantial Broadfield development over the existing Ifield station. - Potential wider employee benefits for west of Crawley also noted. - Notes concern about the proposal for every train to call at Kilnwood Vale. Councillor Nigel Pros and cons of both proposals recognised. Dennis, Horsham - The response notes concern about the potential loss of Hurst station stops at Littlehaven on fast services which serves residential areas of Roffey and Holbrook within easy walking distance. - The response notes concern about a ‘Parkway’ station Agenda Item No. 7 – Appendix C Name/Organisation Summary of comments generating more traffic in general as a result of those who would otherwise walk to their local station, preferring to drive to the new station. Crawley Borough Early delivery of Kilnwood Vale station proposal Council supported. - The response queries why only one of the two proposal stations can be progressed. - The response highlights the key benefits of Kilnwood Vale proposal as: its central location within the heard of the development (compared to North Horsham situated in the south east corner); its accessibility for existing communities, new residents and potential future urban extensions to the west of Crawley; and its role in mitigating local highway network issues within the western neighbourhoods of Crawley which is acting as a constraint to additional development. - The response also notes the need to consider other sustainable transport alternatives if the Kilnwood Vale proposal is not developed, albeit which would not offer the same quality as a new rail station. - Concerns also noted about any reduction in service levels at Ifield. Warnham Parish Support expressed for North Horsham station. Council - The response notes greater level of development at North Horsham compared to Kilnwood Vale and the proposed greater provision of park and ride facilities. Broadbridge Heath Support expressed for North Horsham station. Parish Council - The response notes the role of the proposed station in supporting North Horsham development. North Horsham More information about the impacts on all current Parish Council stations between Horsham and Crawley requested. - The response also noted comparative uncertainty about the North Horsham development compared to the Kilnwood Vale development. Itchingfield Parish Support expressed for North Horsham station. Council - The response notes that there is a need to ensure the adequate provision of parking, as well as better parking at stations at Pulborough, Billingshurt and Christ’s Hospital. Denne Support expressed for North Horsham station. Neighbourhood - The response notes the greater provision of parking Council facilities at the proposed North Horsham station and the role of the station in serving the adjacent business park. - Response notes concerns about the quality of the primary access to the station – i.e. the primarily left- in/left-out access. - North Horsham station would help to alleviate parking pressures at Littlehaven and Horsham stations. - Additional car parking will be required for Horsham station if the North Horsham station is not developed. Agenda Item No. 7 – Appendix C Name/Organisation Summary of comments West Sussex Rail Neither of the two proposals identified as Users Association necessary. - Concerns about additional dwell time added to services and the potential delay to longer distance services if services are late. - The response notes that Littlehaven and Faygate could be developed to meet future needs being within 2-5 miles of each development areas. - Potential for additional parking on land near Faygate station and re-siting of Faygate station slightly to the east to enable better facilities to be provided noted. Sussex Community More detailed plans from developers should be Rail Partnership provided before any decisions are made. - The response notes concerns about impact on communities around existing stations, and concerns about potential longer journey times for existing passengers. - Would favour improved bus services and walking and cycling links to existing stations. - Concerns about increased traffic impact on adjacent level crossing to North Horsham proposed station noted. - Improvements to walking, cycling and public transport access to any new station are important along with a travel plan and the provision of sustainable transport information to all new households. Southern Railway Interest ‘in-principle’ in a new station. - Interested in projects that can increase the attractiveness of the railway. - Projects must be designed not to materially worsen the position for existing customers and allow the right quality of service to be provided for new customers. - Key issues are that the timetable works, journey times are not increased and capacity as far as possible meets demand. .