DOCSLIB.ORG

The Impact of Road Projects in England

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Impact of Road Projects in England The Impact of Road Projects in England The Impact of Road Projects in England Lynn Sloman, Lisa Hopkinson and Ian Taylor Transport for Quality of Life March 2017 Commissioned by: Project name: The Impact of Road Projects in England Client: Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) Date: March 2017 The preferred citation of this report is: Sloman L, Hopkinson L and Taylor I (2017) The Impact of Road Projects in England Report for CPRE Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence Acknowledgments The following people provided information and help during the course of this project, which we gratefully acknowledge: James Abbott, Michele Allen, Sarah Arnold, Andy Bennett, Kerris Casey-St Pierre, Jackie Copley, Amy Cowburn, Steve Donagain, Tony Duckworth, Robin Field, Peter Foreman, Alan Gray, Chantelle Grundy, David Harby, Tony Forward, Jeffery Kenyon, Bettina Lange, Ian Lings, No M65 Link Road Protest Group, David Penney, Martin Porter, Oliver Scott, Stuart Scott, Ralph Smyth, Jack Taylor, James Syson, Trinley Walker, Petra Ward, Paula Whitney, Louise Wootton, Hadyn Yeo. It would not have been possible to make this assessment of the impact of roads projects without the POPE evaluation process that was put in place by the Highways Agency twenty years ago. Although our assessment of the evidence has drawn some markedly different conclusions from those reached in the POPE meta-analyses, we acknowledge the value and importance of the POPE process itself. We also acknowledge and are grateful for the willingness of Highways England to assist with this research, by supplying data and information from their archives. We also thank Tony Forward for access to his archive of planning documents. Cover image: Excavation of cutting for the Newbury Bypass; Chris Gomersall rspb- images.com All other images: Transport for Quality of Life, unless otherwise stated TfQL Community Interest Company Telephone: 01654 781358 Email: [email protected] Contact: Lynn Sloman, [email protected] 2 | P a g e Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 6 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 9 PART I: Evidence from POPEs and Meta-analyses ............................................................ 11 2. Effects of Road Schemes on Traffic Volume .................................................................... 11 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 11 2.2 Our methodology to assess existence of induced traffic ........................................ 12 2.3 Evidence of induced traffic ...................................................................................... 14 2.4 Variance of conclusions to those in the POPE meta-analysis .................................. 21 3. Effects of Road Schemes on Landscape, Biodiversity and Heritage ................................ 22 3.1 Landscape impact: evidence from POPE ................................................................. 22 3.2 Biodiversity impacts: evidence from POPE.............................................................. 25 3.3 Heritage impacts: evidence from POPE ................................................................... 27 3.4 Highways England’s responsibility for landscape and biodiversity ......................... 28 3.5 POPE approach to assessment of environmental impact ....................................... 28 4. Effects of Road Schemes on the Local Economy ............................................................. 30 4.1 Economic development impact: evidence from POPE ............................................ 30 4.2 Our assessment of economic evidence in the POPEs .............................................. 43 4.3 Other evidence on the economic impact of road schemes .................................... 45 4.4 Comments on the POPE approach to the assessment of economic impact ........... 46 5. Other Effects of Road Schemes ....................................................................................... 48 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 48 5.2 Congestion and reliability ........................................................................................ 48 5.3 Journey time savings in cost-benefit analysis of road schemes .............................. 50 5.4 Road safety .............................................................................................................. 53 5.5 Greenhouse gas emissions ...................................................................................... 54 PART II: Case Study Evidence .......................................................................................... 56 6. Overview of the Case Studies .......................................................................................... 56 7. A34 Newbury Bypass Case Study .................................................................................... 59 7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 59 7.2 Traffic impact ........................................................................................................... 60 7.3 Landscape and other environmental impacts ......................................................... 62 7.4 Economic impact ..................................................................................................... 66 3 | P a g e 7.5 Land development impact ....................................................................................... 67 7.6 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 74 8. M65 Blackburn Southern Bypass Case Study .................................................................. 75 8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 75 8.2 Traffic impact ........................................................................................................... 76 8.3 Landscape and other environmental impacts ......................................................... 80 8.4 Economic impact ..................................................................................................... 83 8.5 Land development impact ....................................................................................... 86 8.6 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 88 9. A46 Newark – Lincoln Case Study ................................................................................... 90 9.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 90 9.2 Traffic impact ........................................................................................................... 91 9.3 Landscape and other environmental impacts ......................................................... 94 9.4 Economic impact ..................................................................................................... 98 9.5 Land development impact ..................................................................................... 101 9.6 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 103 10. A120 Stansted to Braintree Case Study ..................................................................... 105 10.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 105 10.2 Traffic impact ......................................................................................................... 107 10.3 Landscape and other environmental impacts ....................................................... 110 10.4 Economic impact ................................................................................................... 113 10.5 Land development impact ..................................................................................... 116 10.6 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 118 PART III: Evidence Synthesis and Recommendations ..................................................... 119 11. Overview of the effects of the roads programme ..................................................... 119 11.1 Roads and generated traffic .................................................................................. 119 11.2 Roads and environmental impacts ........................................................................ 121 11.3 Roads and economic impacts ................................................................................ 122 11.4 Roads and land use change ................................................................................... 126 11.5 Roads, safety and physical activity ........................................................................ 126 11.6 Was road building the solution?............................................................................ 127 11.7 Recommendations and conclusions .....................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A46 Coventry Junctions Upgrade (Binley Junction) Highways England Statement of Case
    A46 Coventry Junctions Upgrade (Binley junction) Highways England Statement of Case In respect of the Highways and Compulsory Purchase Orders under Provisions of the Highways Act 1980 January 2020 Page 1 of 72 A46 Coventry Junctions Upgrade (Binley junction) Highways England Statement of Case This page is left intentionally blank Page 2 of 72 A46 Coventry Junctions Upgrade (Binley junction) Highways England Statement of Case STATEMENT OF CASE for THE A46 TRUNK ROAD (COVENTRY JUNCTIONS UPGRADE (BINLEY)) (TRUNKING) ORDER 201[ ] and THE A46 TRUNK ROAD (COVENTRY JUNCTIONS UPGRADE (BINLEY)) (DETRUNKING) ORDER 201[ ] and THE A46 TRUNK ROAD (COVENTRY JUNCTIONS UPGRADE (BINLEY)) (SIDE ROADS) ORDER 2019 and THE A46 TRUNK ROAD (COVENTRY JUNCTIONS UPGRADE (BINLEY)) COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 2019 Page 3 of 72 A46 Coventry Junctions Upgrade (Binley junction) Highways England Statement of Case Table of Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................... 10 Background ....................................................................................................... 14 Environmental Assessment of the Project ...................................................... 18 Traffic and Economic Assessment of the Scheme ......................................... 24 The Orders ......................................................................................................... 37 Page 4 of 72 A46 Coventry Junctions Upgrade (Binley junction) Highways England Statement of Case Conformity
    [Show full text]
  • Item C1 SW/09/894 – Installation of a Small Scale Biomass Power Plant
    SECTION C MINERALS AND WASTE DISPOSAL Background Documents - the deposited documents, views and representations received as referred to in the reports and included in the development proposals dossier for each case and also as might be additionally indicated. Item C1 SW/09/894 – Installation of a small scale biomass power plant within an existing and extended building for the generation of renewable energy from low grade waste wood at Ridham Dock Road, Iwade, Sittingbourne, Kent A report by Head of Planning Applications Group to Planning Applications Committee on 11 May 2010. SW/09/894 – Installation of a small scale biomass power plant within an existing and extended building for the generation of renewable energy from low grade waste wood at Ridham Dock Road, Iwade, Sittingbourne, Kent ME9 8SR (MR. 921 674) Recommendation: Permission BE GRANTED subject to conditions. Local Member: Mr A Willicombe Classification: Unrestricted Background 1. Planning permission was granted in 2006, for a material recovery facility (MRF), in-vessel composting facility and the continuation of secondary aggregate recycling operations at the Countrystyle Recycling site, Ridham Dock, under planning consent reference SW/05/1392. Under its current consent the site is permitted to handle some 31,000 tonnes of compostable waste and 35,000 tonnes per year of recyclable waste through the MRF. Whilst the permission also allows for the continuation of 10,000 tonnes per annum of secondary aggregate recycling, this activity appears to have all but ceased and replaced with shredding of low grade wood waste. Site Description and Proposal 2. The site itself lies some 2km north of Kemsley, 2.1 km to the east of Iwade and 1.2km to the east of the A249.
    [Show full text]
  • Renewable & Low Carbon Energy Study
    Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Study Maslen Environmental Addendum Pendle Borough Council: January 2011 Following Pendle Council’s six-week public consultation1 on the findings of the Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Study (Maslen, 2010) the following comments should be noted when reading the study: Section 2.1.1 National Policy and European Context (Page 3) The planning Inspectorate will assume the role of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, following changes introduced in the Decentralisation and Localism Bill, 2010. Section 2.1.3 Local Policy Context (Page 10) In addition to Policy 19, the emerging Rossendale Core Strategy also includes Policy 20: Wind Energy, which sets out the criteria against which wind energy proposals will be assessed. Section 4.1.2 General Constraints (Page 21) The list under ‘Cultural Sensitivies’ should include a reference to ‘Historic Parks and Gardens’. Section 4.1.3 Considering Suitable Locations (Page 22) It should be noted that national policy on heritage assets is set out in Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS5) (Communities & Local Government, March 2010). Section 4.1.3 Considering Suitable Locations – Local Designations (Page 23) Consideration should also be given to ‘non designated heritage assets’ i.e. locally important, but not nationally designated, heritage resources. In some instances satisfactory mitigation of the impact of a proposal, on an environmental or cultural designation, may not be possible. In such cases an application may be refused. Section 4.2.3 Landscape – Wind Energy (Page 31) The Lancashire County Council Landscape Character Assessment has been informed by the historic landscape assessment of Lancashire carried out by the County Archaeology Service, which commenced in January 1999.
    [Show full text]
  • Basingstoke Motorway Service Area Junction 6 M3 Motorway Transport Assessment Page Left Intentionally Blank
    BA04 Basingstoke Motorway Service Area Transport Assessment BASINGSTOKE MOTORWAY SERVICE AREA JUNCTION 6 M3 MOTORWAY TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK ii M342-DOC06 TA July 2017 BASINGSTOKE MOTORWAY SERVICE AREA JUNCTION 6 M3 MOTORWAY TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT CONTROL Job No M342 File Reference G:\workfiles\M342\REPORTS\M342-DOC06 TA.docx Name Date Initials Prepared By P Key 22.09.2017 Checked By P L S Finlayson 27.09.2017 Issue Date Comments Approved For submission of 1 29.09.2017 planning application P L S Finlayson This document has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client in connection with the project and, unless otherwise agreed in writing by PFA Consulting, no other party may copy, reproduce, make use of or rely upon its contents other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Opinions and information provided in this document have been provided using due care and diligence. It should be noted and is expressly stated that no independent verification of any information supplied to PFA Consulting has been made. Warning: This document may contain coloured images which may not print satisfactorily in black and white. It may also contain images originally created at a size greater than A4 which may not print satisfactorily on small printers. If copying is authorised but difficulty is incurred in reproducing a paper copy of this document, or a scaled copy is required, please contact PFA Consulting. Authorisation for reproducing plans based upon Ordnance Survey information cannot be given. © PFA Consulting Ltd 2017 i M342-DOC06 TA September 2017 BASINGSTOKE MOTORWAY SERVICE AREA JUNCTION 6 M3 MOTORWAY TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK ii M342-DOC06 TA September 2017 BASINGSTOKE MOTORWAY SERVICE AREA JUNCTION 6 M3 MOTORWAY TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT CONTENTS PAGE NO.
    [Show full text]
  • Pendle Park E-Brochure V2
    FORWARD THINKING BUSINESS WWW.PENDLEPARK.COM Pendle Park is a new commercial business park located of junction 13 (M65) Planning permission granted* for a major new logistics/manufacturing estate of 600,000 sq ft covering 55 acres. Phase 1 - 250,000 sq ft (units from 1,500 - 195,000 sq ft) Phase 2 - Up to 350,000 sq ft (approx.) FORWARD THINKING BUSINESS *Outline Planning Secured (B1,B2,B8). Alternative Uses (Subject to Planning). COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL PARK PENDLE JCT 13 PARK Pendle Park is a major, new, M65 employment site ofering industrial, manufacturing and logistics opportunities. The site can accommodate a single unit of upto 400,000 sq ft on a design and build basis. Phase I ofers a range of smaller units from 1,500-22,500 sq ft as well as 195,000 sq ft which will be ready for occupation in Q2 2022. PHASE 1 Phase 2 will ofer a range of build to suit opportunities up to 350,000 sq ft. A full design team is in place and ready to provide PHASE 2 schemes based on the specific requirements of occupiers. Pendle Park will benefit from a dedicated access of the A665 with new junction. WWW.PENDLEPARK.COM FORWARD THINKING BUSINESS PENDLE PARK © 2021 WWW.PENDLEPARK.COM COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL PARK M65 Jct 13 A6068 LOMESHAYE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE M65 Jct 12 PENDLE PARK © 2021 WWW.PENDLEPARK.COM COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL PARK J 13 B6249 A6068 A56 LOCATION M65 B6249 The site is situated immediately adjacent to Lomeshaye Industrial Estate which is a well established M65 industrial / logistics location.
    [Show full text]
  • Western Lake NEWBURY, BERKSHIRE WESTERN LAKE LOWER FARM ## HAMBRIDGE LANE !N !N NEWBURY !!!! BERKSHIRE RG14 5TH
    Western Lake NEWBURY, BERKSHIRE WESTERN LAKE LOWER FARM ## HAMBRIDGE LANE !N !N NEWBURY !!!! BERKSHIRE RG14 5TH Restored lake providing excellent amenity value as well as a protected wetland 7147 7147 habitat for a wide variety 3.13 ac 3.11.32 7a cha of birds. 1.27 ha 6433 8737 246.6463 3ac 0.1 a8c737 Historically extracted for gravel the Western 294.9.68 6h ac 0.040 h.1a ac Lake extends to about 25 acres and has 9.98 ha 0.04 ha been subsequently restored to provide a 8625 conservation lake. Together with adjacent 1.818 a6c25 trees and land it currently provides an 0.713. 8h1a ac interesting wetland habitat for a wide 5522 0.73 ha variety of species of birds. 95.8582 2ac In all extending to 39.84 acres (16.12 hectares). 9.848 h ac 4 ha For sale by private treaty as a whole. 8917 0.118 a9c17 0.04 ha 8118 0.11 ac 0.04 ha 0.158 1a1c8 0.06.1 h5a ac 0.06 ha © Crown Copyright and database rights 2020 OS 100004458 © Crown Copyright and database rights 2020 OS 100004458 8 BURNT HILL 3 3 YATTENDON A CHIEVELEY LITTLE HORSEMOOR 4 HUNGERFORD # M HERMITAGE FRILSHAM BRADFIELD WINTERBOURNE LONGLANE WICKHAM WESTBROOK B STANFORD 4 CURRIDGE DINGLEY 4 BOXFORD TUTTS CLUMP 9 N 4 ! B4000 BUCKLEBURY SOUTHEND !! B4009 CHAPEL ROW ASHMORE GREEN COLD ASH DONNINGTON UPPER BEENHAM BUCKLEBURY STOCKCROSS SHAW A4 SPEEN UPPER LOWER PADWORTH SPEENHAMLAND WOOLHAMPTON ALDERMASTON THATCHAM MIDGHAM NEWBURY COLTHROP WHARF KINTBURY EAST FIELDS WOOLHAMPTON WEST FIELDS 4 3 HAMSTEAD MARSHALL A GREENHAM WESTERN LAKE ALDERMASTON PADWORTH INKPEN BRIMPTON COMMON WASH COMMON OLD WARREN
    [Show full text]
  • Site Selection Appendix C.28
    Waste Core Strategy Site Options Consultation Waste Site Assessment Appendix C.28: Site 252 - Business/Industrial Park, Tewkesbury/Aschurch October 2009 Appendix C.28: Site 252 - Business/Industrial Park, Tewkesbury/Aschurch Site Maps and Images Site Map © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Gloucestershire County Council 100019134 2008. Aerial Photo Imagery copyright Getmapping PLC. www.getmapping.com Appendix C.28: Site 252 - Business/Industrial Park, Tewkesbury/Aschurch Site Images Locational Information Site Details District Tewkesbury Parish Northway Tewkesbury Easting 391577 Northing 233604 Approximate Site Area 119 (hectares) Reasons for inclusion NB: Slight anomalies in site boundaries may have arisen The site was identified in the Tewkesbury Local Plan; was listed in from ‘clustering’ of sites from Tewkesbury Borough Council's Employment Land Review and contains more than one source and/or existing waste management facilities. the absence of detailed site plans in source documents. Date of WPA officer 5th December 2008 visit Appendix C.28: Site 252 - Business/Industrial Park, Tewkesbury/Aschurch Broad Description of This is a very large site which consists of three areas. Areas 1 and 2 are to Site (including current the west of the M5 and Area 3 is to the east. The site is based around activities on site, Junction 9 of the M5. location and neighbouring uses) AREA 1 - Is in between the A438 (Ashchurch Road) and Northway Lane. It consists of a large number of older units. Businesses in this area include: Jewsons, Tewkesbury Car Auctions, Cotteswold Dairy, Peugeot garage, Travelodge, Brewers Fayre. AREA 2 – This is a relatively new section of the business Park and is located to the north of Northway Lane.
    [Show full text]
  • Gi200900.Pdf
    Gloucestershire Society for Industrial Archaeology Journal for 2009 Contents Editorial......................................................................................................................................2 From Willow to Wicket: A Lost Cricket Bat Willow Plantation in Leonard Stanley. By Stephen Mills ......................................................................... 3-8 Matthews & Company – Gloucester’s Premier Furniture Manufacturers By Hugh Conway-Jones ......................................................................................... 9-13 Two Recently Discovered Field Books from Sopwith’s Mineral Survey of the Forest of Dean. By Ian Standing ......................................................................... 14-22 The Canal Round House at Inglesham Lock By John Copping (Adapted for the GSIA Journal by Alan Strickland) ..................................................................... 23-35 Upper Redbrook Iron Works 1798-9: David Tanner's Bankruptcy By Pat Morris ...... 36-40 The Malthouse, Tanhouse Farm, Church End, Frampton on Severn, Gloucestershire By Amber Patrick ................................................................................................. 41-46 The Restoration of the Cotswold Canals, July 2010 Update. By Theo Stening .............. 47-50 GSIA Visit Reports for 2009 ............................................................................................. 51-57 Book Reviews ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Road Investment Strategy: Overview
    Road Investment Strategy: Overview December 2014 Road Investment Strategy: Overview December 2014 The Department for Transport has actively considered the needs of blind and partially sighted people in accessing this document. The text will be made available in full on the Department’s website. The text may be freely downloaded and translated by individuals or organisations for conversion into other accessible formats. If you have other needs in this regard please contact the Department. Department for Transport Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SW1P 4DR Telephone 0300 330 3000 Website www.gov.uk/dft General enquiries https://forms.dft.gov.uk ISBN: 978-1-84864-148-8 © Crown copyright 2014 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. You may re-use this information (not including logos or third-party material) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. Photographic acknowledgements Alamy: Cover Contents 3 Contents Foreword 5 The Strategic Road Network 8 The challenges 9 The vision 10 The Investment Plan 13 The Performance Specification 22 Transforming our roads 26 Appendices: regional profiles 27 The Road Investment Strategy suite of documents (Strategic Vision, Investment Plan, Performance Specification, and this Overview) are intended to fulfil the requirements of Clause 3 of the Infrastructure Bill 2015 for the 2015/16 – 2019/20 Road Period.
    [Show full text]
  • HICL Infrastructure PLC Annual Report 2020 Delivering Real Value
    HICL Infrastructure PLC Annual Report 2020 Delivering Real Value. Bangor and Nendrum Schools, UK Contents 2020 Highlights 2 Overview 01 1.1 Chairman’s Statement 6 Strategic Report 02 2.1 The Infrastructure Market 12 2.2 Investment Proposition 17 2.3 HICL’s Business Model & Strategy 18 2.4 Key Performance & Quality Indicators 20 2.5 Investment Manager’s Report 22 Strategic Report: Performance & Risk 03 3.1 Operating Review 30 3.2 Sustainability Report 34 3.3 Financial Review 50 3.4 Valuation of the Portfolio 55 3.5 The Investment Portfolio 68 3.6 Portfolio Analysis 70 3.7 Risk & Risk Management 72 3.8 Viability Statement 84 3.9 Risk Committee Report 85 3.10 Strategic Report Disclosures 89 Directors’ Report 04 4.1 Board and Governance 94 4.2 Board of Directors 96 4.3 The Investment Manager 98 4.4 Corporate Governance Statement 99 4.5 Audit Committee Report 113 4.6 Directors’ Remuneration Report 118 4.7 Report of the Directors 122 4.8 Statement of Directors’ Responsibilities 126 Financial Statements 05 5.1 Independent Auditor’s Report 130 5.2 Financial Statements 136 5.3 Notes to the Financial Statements 140 Glossary 180 Directors & Advisers 182 Front cover image: Salford Hospital, UK HICL Infrastructure Company Limited (or “HICL Guernsey”) announced on 21 November 2018 that, following consultation with investors, the Board was of the view that it would be in the best interests of shareholders as a whole to move the domicile of the investment business from Guernsey to the United Kingdom.
    [Show full text]
  • Swale’S Coast
    The Kent Coast Coastal Access Report This document is part of a larger document produced by Kent Area of the Ramblers’ Association and should not be read or interpreted except as part of that larger document. In particular every part of the document should be read in conjunction with the notes in the Introduction. In no circumstances may any part of this document be downloaded or distributed without all the other parts. Swale’s Coast 4.4 Swale’s Coast 4.4.1 Description 4.4.1.1 Sw ale’s coast starts at TQ828671 at Otterham Quay. It extends for 115 km to TR056650 on Graveney Marshes to the w est of The Sportsman pub. It takes in the Isle of Sheppey w hich is connected to the mainland by tw o bridges at Sw ale. It is the longest coastline in Kent. 4.4.1.2 Approximately 55 km is on PRoWs, 27 km is de facto access (though some is difficult walking) and 33 km is inaccessible to w alkers. The majority of the 27 km of inaccessible coast does not appear to be excepted land. From the Coastal Access aspect it is the most complicated coastline in Kent. Part of the mainland route is along the Saxon Shore Way. 4.4.1.3 The view to seaw ard at the start is over the Medw ay estuary. There are extensive saltings and several uninhabited islands. The route then follows the River Sw ale to Sheppey and back to the Medw ay Estuary. The north and east coasts of Sheppey look out to the Thames Estuary.
    [Show full text]
  • West Berkshire
    West Berkshire Personal Details: Name: Sarah Logan E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: Please can we stop wasting money on this sort of rubbish? Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded 10/6/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal West Berkshire Personal Details: Name: a markham E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: It is a good idea to have three councillor wards.The reason for this is that the constituents will have a cho ce as to wh ch councillor they contact. Furthermore it may well be the case that these members are of different political persuasions so mthe constituent again will have more cho ce. This is more democrat c abnd more efficient.. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10632 1/1 West Berkshire Personal Details: Name: Sarah Marshman E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: The Basildon and Compton Ward states it shall have 2 councillors. I would like to query why the ward should be made so large and then given two councillors - what is the benefit of this rather than making it two smaller wards with an individual councillor in each? It is a not-insignificant distance from the western to the eastern boundaries of this ward and it looks to me that the suggested ward could be split roughly in half, assigning one councillor to each ward. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded West Berkshire Personal Details: Name: James Mathieson E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: This submission is in response to the most recent draft recommendations by LGBCE regarding the future composition of West Berkshire Council and the future geographic boundaries of individual wards.
    [Show full text]