DOCSLIB.ORG

Response to Proposals for Two New Railway Stations Between

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Response to Proposals for Two New Railway Stations Between 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. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • West Sussex County Council Response to the Network Rail Draft Sussex Area Route Study Consultation
    Ref No: HT21 (14/15) Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport Key Decision: Yes West Sussex County Council response to the Part I or Part II: Network Rail draft Sussex Area Route Study Part I consultation Report by Director of Highways and Transport and Electoral Director of Strategic Planning and Place Divisions: All Executive Summary Network Rail is undertaking a consultation to gather views on its draft South East Route: Sussex Area Route Study. This study sets out a 30-year vision for this area of the rail network. It primarily focuses on rail industry Control Period 6 (2019-2024) to inform Government investment decisions for this time frame, but also considers growth in demand for rail travel to 2043. Consultation responses are being welcomed on any of the ideas and interventions set out in the study. The study will inform future decisions about rail infrastructure and rail service planning as well as the capacity of major stations, rather than specific timetable, service quality and station access issues which are concerns for the rail franchisee. Key issues highlighted in the County Council response include: support for investment to expand capacity for the Brighton Main Line; a request for further investment in rail infrastructure away from routes to London to support a balanced economy; support for analysis undertaken within the Study into the Arundel Chord scheme and provision of an improved journey times along the West Coastway route; and requests for greater attention to be made to level crossing and car parking issues within the study. Recommendation The Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport approves West Sussex County Council’s consultation response, contained in Appendix A of the report, for submission to the Network Rail draft South East Route: Sussex Area Route Study.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Review of Parliamentary Constituencies PDF 1 MB
    Crawley Borough Council Report to Governance Committee 28th November 2017 2018 Review of Parliamentary Constituencies Report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services: LDS/133 1. Purpose 1.1 This report informs the Committee of the revised proposals of the Boundary Commission for England for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries as they affect Crawley. 2. Recommendations 2.1 That representations be made to the Boundary Commission for England that the Rusper and Colgate ward should be included in Crawley parliamentary constituency. 3. Reasons for the Recommendations 3.1 The residents of Kilnwood Vale will receive significant services from Crawley constituency and would be best represented by the Member of Parliament for Crawley. 4. Background 4.1 In 2016 the Boundary Commission for England (BCE) announced the start of a Review of Parliamentary constituencies. At its meeting held on 14th November 2017 the Governance Committee considered the initial proposals of the Boundary Commission for England (BCE) for a new parliamentary constituency for Crawley as part of the review of constituencies under the provisions of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011. 4.2 The new rules involve a reduction in the number of Constituencies in England from 533 to 501, and state that each constituency must have an electorate, at December 2015, no smaller than 71,031 and no bigger than 78,507. 4.3 At present, the boundaries of Crawley Constituency and Crawley Borough are co- terminus. The parliamentary electorate for Crawley on 1st December 2015 was 70,578 and therefore is not big enough to remain co-terminus with the borough boundary under the new rules.
    [Show full text]
  • HORSHAM DISTRICT COUNCIL – LIST of NEW APPS (Parish Order) Data Produced 7Th August 2017
    HORSHAM DISTRICT COUNCIL – LIST OF NEW APPS (Parish Order) Data produced 7th August 2017 Parish: Billingshurst PC Ward: Billingshurst and Shipley Case No: DC/17/1673 Case Officer: Luke Simpson Date Valid: 28 July 2017 Comments by: 1 September 2017 Decision Level: Delegated Decision App Type: Householder Agent: Applicant: Mr and Mrs Matthew Odell Proposal: Proposed erection of a single storey domestic stable block with pitched gable roof and storage/office space above. (Revised scheme to that previously approved under application DC/14/2097). Site Address: South Lodge New Road Billingshurst West Sussex RH14 9DT Grid Ref: 510021 126858 Parish: Bramber PC Ward: Bramber, Upper Beeding and Woodmancote Case No: DC/17/1245 Case Officer: Nicola Mason Date Valid: 17 July 2017 Comments by: 15 August 2017 Decision Level: Delegated Decision App Type: Minor Dwellings Agent: Mark Folkes Applicant: Mr David King Proposal: Proposed erection of a single two storey dwelling (Amendments to previously approved application DC/16/1088) Site Address: Land To The Rear of Crimond Maudlin Lane Bramber Steyning West Sussex Grid Ref: 517942 110615 Parish: Cowfold PC Ward: Cowfold,Shermanbury and West Grinstead Case No: DC/17/1680 Case Officer: Tamara Dale Date Valid: 28 July 2017 Comments by: 1 September 2017 Decision Level: Delegated Decision App Type: Change of Use Agent: Mr Matthew Brockhurst Applicant: Mr K Strange Proposal: Proposed change of use and associated works to convert existing agricultural barn/store into self- contained 1 bedroom accommodation unit
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of a Planning Meeting of Colgate Parish Council Held on 25Th Nov 2020 Remotely. Present Councillors: C. Crosdil, S
    Minutes of a Planning Meeting of Colgate Parish Council held on 25th Nov 2020 remotely. Present Councillors: C. Crosdil, S Garley , S. Davies, S. Marley, J Sired and V. Finnegan Apologies were accepted: R Calvert ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Minutes of the last meeting. None. 2. Declaration of Interests None 3. Members of the public- None 4. Applications. DC/20/2223 Reserved matters application for Phase 6A of the Kilnwood Vale development, comprising 168 dwellings with associated landscaping, play space and parking following approval of outline application DC/17/2481 relating to layout, scale, appearance and landscaping. Land Within Phase 6 Kilnwood Vale Crawley Road Faygate No Comments 5. Decisions Application Number: DC/20/1904 Site: Acorn House 11 Beedingwood Drive Colgate Horsham West Sussex RH12 4TE Description: Surgery to 1 x Beech Decision: Application Permitted Date of Decision: 11/11/2020 Application Number: DC/20/1692 Site: 1 Beedingwood Drive Colgate Horsham West Sussex RH12 4TE Description: Fell 1 x Oak Decision: Application Permitted 1 Date of Decision: 17/11/2020 Application Number: DC/20/1745 Site: Street Record Beedingwood Drive Colgate West Sussex Description: Fell 1 x Pussy Willow and Surgery to 1 x Silver Birch Decision: Application Permitted Date of Decision: 17/11/2020 Application Number: DC/20/1782 Site: 1 Coach House Colgate Lodge Blackhouse Road Colgate Horsham West Sussex RH13 6HS Description: Variation of Condition
    [Show full text]
  • SCRP Annual Review 2018
    2018 Annual Review WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP connecting communities with places and opportunities SUSSEX COMMUNITY RAIL PARTNERSHIP CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTION SCRP IN 2018 Welcome to our Review of 2018 Partnership structure 2018 has been an incredibly busy year for the Sussex Sussex Community Rail Partnership (SCRP) was formed Community Rail Partnership (SCRP), now in its 10th year in 2002 and has operated as a not for profi t Limited as a Limited Company. Company since 2008. SCRP is managed by volunteer A new community line was launched between Hove and directors, who provide local, independent expertise. We Angmering and the North Downs Line was extended to employ eight staff who coordinate project work within Reading. 18 new station partnerships were formed with local their community area. community support. Go-Learn reached over 3,200 children and Active Access We work in partnership with train operators, Network Rail, community groups, supported over 70 young people. The SCRP worked closely with partners to local authorities and local businesses, helping them to achieve their objectives. deliver World War 1 commemorations at 16 stations and launched a new suite SCRP’s Stakeholder Advisory Board meets twice a year and represents an of Line Guides and promotional videos. opportunity to update members on developments, to seek guidance on future The SCRP works with many partners to deliver projects, including individuals, strategy and to hear guest speakers from the rail industry. community groups, businesses, Network Rail and local authorities. We are SCRP now has seven Community Rail Lines, and each has a Development grateful for the support we receive from Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) and Offi cer who arranges four steering group meetings a year to monitor progress Great Western Railway (GWR) and our stakeholders who provide advice and on the annual action plan.
    [Show full text]
  • West Sussex County Council Response to the Network Rail Draft South East Route: Sussex Area Route Study Consultation
    Ref No: HT21 (14/15) Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport Key Decision: Yes West Sussex County Council response to the Part I or Part II: Network Rail draft Sussex Area Route Study Part I consultation Report by Director of Highways and Transport and Electoral Director of Strategic Planning and Place Divisions: All Executive Summary Network Rail is undertaking a consultation to gather views on its draft South East Route: Sussex Area Route Study. This study sets out a 30-year vision for this area of the rail network. It primarily focuses on rail industry Control Period 6 (2019-2024) to inform Government investment decisions for this time frame, but also considers growth in demand for rail travel to 2043. Consultation responses are being welcomed on any of the ideas and interventions set out in the study. The study will inform future decisions about rail infrastructure and rail service planning as well as the capacity of major stations, rather than specific timetable, service quality and station access issues which are concerns for the rail franchisee. Key issues highlighted in the County Council response include: support for investment to expand capacity for the Brighton Main Line; a request for further investment in rail infrastructure away from routes to London to support a balanced economy; support for analysis undertaken within the Study into the Arundel Chord scheme and provision of an improved journey times along the West Coastway route; and requests for greater attention to be made to level crossing and car parking issues within the study. Recommendation The Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport approves West Sussex County Council’s consultation response, contained in Appendix A of the report, for submission to the Network Rail draft South East Route: Sussex Area Route Study.
    [Show full text]
  • Land West of Crawley, Rusper Site Area: ´ 190 Hectares
    Land West of Crawley, Rusper Site area: ´ 190 hectares The site primarily comprises arable and pasture fields bounded by hedgerows and mature trees together with a golf course. The wider area of study is located north of the A264 from Faygate in the west and extends in an arc north west towards Crawley, Gatwick Airport and the A23. To the east, the site adjoins the neighbourhood of Ifield, in Crawley and Gatwick Airport is to the north. Horsham District Council Local Plan Review 2020 Parkside, Chart Way, Horsham West Sussex RH12 1RL Potential Strategic Allocations Barbara Childs : Director of Place over 800 dwellings Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey map on behalf of HMSO. © Crown copyright and database rights (2020). Reference No : Date : 24 January 2020 Scale : 1:5,000 at A2 Ordnance Survey Licence.100023865 Drawing No : Drawn : Checked : Revisions : Homes England have identified an area of search that sweeps Pros and Cons from Faygate to the west of Crawley. Homes England suggest • If allocated the site would help the Council to meet a significant up to 10,000 homes could be delivered. Within the area of proportion of the Government’s housing requirements and search, land immediately to the West of Ifield is being promoted would provide new facilities and services such as shops and for around 3,000 homes and Land to the West of Kilnwood Vale schools and leisure facilities. Many of these could be delivered (not shown in the map above) is being promoted for around early in the development. 800 homes. These would form part the 10,000 homes if the site • Potential to provide new employment land.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CAPITAL Project Trust
    CAPITAL Project Trust Opening Doors to Mental Wellbeing Information and Resources Handbook To Support You and Your Mental Health during Social Distancing and Self Isolation due to Covid-19 Information gathered from multiple sources including Pathfinder, Local Councils and other Charities. Information is subject to change. CAPITAL Project Trust would like to thank all providers for their support and advice. Compiled by CAPITAL Project Trust, April 2020 1 Contents Page Mental Health Apps 3 - 8 Wellbeing Websites 9 - 10 Support Available - Specific Area 11 - 15 Foodbanks 16 - 17 Domestic Abuse Support 18 - 19 Crisis Support Information 20 Pathfinder Contact Details 21 - 22 2 Wellbeing and Mental Health Apps Compiled by Pathfinder West Sussex https://www.pathfinderwestsussex.org.uk/ Self-Management Wellness Recovery Action Plan (WRAP) Free and available for App Store and Play store. • The WRAP is a simple and powerful process for creating the life and wellness you want. • Using the WRAP App, you can develop your WRAP, carry it with you wherever you go and share it with whomever you want. • Based on the WRAP Workbook, the WRAP App walks you through the process of creating your personal WRAP. Use it on your own, with a friend or supporter, or in a WRAP group. Recovery Path - Free to download and available on App Store as well as Play store • For people with addictive behaviour • This app offers many strategies to overcome cravings and supports the user to develop a path to sustained recovery, share progress with others and receive support. MyPlan • MyPlan is a tool to help women with safety decisions, such as abuse in their intimate relationship.
    [Show full text]
  • Your Journey to Work
    YOUR JOURNEY TO WORK Staff Travel Plan 2013-2030 INTRODUCTION CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 I have pleasure in introducing the One of the themes identified within ‘Access Gatwick’ is that the airport is a place of work for over 21,000 THE FUTURE OF TRAVEL 4 Airport Staff Travel Plan which will employees in 230 companies. Each year we estimate 1 GATWICK AIRPORT 9 support ‘Access Gatwick’ our Airport that the number of journeys made by staff to and from work is around 10 million; therefore the sustainable 2 GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE AND Surface Access Strategy. Together development of staff travel is a key element of our IMPORTANCE OF TRAVEL 13 they will deliver our commitments plans for the future. 3 GATWICK AREA TRANSPORT FORUM 19 to encourage sustainable journeys In 2012, our Staff Travel Survey showed that 32.2% of to and from the airport. employees were using public transport and sustainable 4 GATWICK TRANSPORT HUB 25 travel methods for their journey to work. Our target 5 MONITORING OUR PERFORMANCE 43 is to increase this figure to 40% of staff travelling on public transport by the time Gatwick is serving 40 million passengers per annum. This Staff Travel Plan, therefore not only supports the ambitions for growth, our ASAS ‘Access Gatwick’, but sets out in detail how we aim to meet our future target for staff travel. The principle aims of the Gatwick Staff Travel Plan are: • Improve the choice of transport options and facilities available to all employees working at Gatwick • Reduce the local, national and global environmental impact of airport staff travel to and from work by raising awareness • Promote more sustainable means of transport I commend this Plan to you.
    [Show full text]