Agenda
AGENDA for a meeting of the ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING AND TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL in COMMITTEE ROOM B at County Hall, Hertford on THURSDAY, 30 JUNE 2016 at 10.00 AM ______
MEMBERS OF THE PANEL (11) (Quorum 3)
D Andrews (Vice-Chairman), D A Ashley (Chairman), D J Barnard, N Bell, H K Crofton, A S B Walkington, N A Hollinghurst, M D M Muir, S J Taylor, R Sangster, R H Smith.
Meetings of the Cabinet Panel are open to the public (this includes the press) and attendance is welcomed. However, there may be occasions when the public are excluded from the meeting for particular items of business. Any such items are taken at the end of the public part of the meeting and are listed under “Part II (‘closed’) agenda”.
Committee Room B is fitted with an audio system to assist those with hearing impairment. Anyone who wishes to use this should contact main (front) reception.
Members are reminded that all equalities implications and equalities impact assessments undertaken in relation to any matter on this agenda must be rigorously considered prior to any decision being reached on that matter.
PART I (PUBLIC) AGENDA
1. MINUTES
To confirm the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 May 2016 (attached).
2. PUBLIC PETITIONS
The opportunity for any member of the public, being resident in Hertfordshire, to present a petition relating to a matter with which the Council is concerned, which is relevant to the remit of this Cabinet Panel and which contains signatories who are either resident in or who work in Hertfordshire.
Members of the public who are considering raising an issue of concern via a petition are advised to contact their local member of the Council. The Council's arrangements for the receipt of petitions are set out in Annex 22 - Petitions Scheme of the Constitution.
If you have any queries about the procedure please contact Theresa Baker, by telephone on (01992 556545) or by e-mail to [email protected]
At the time of the publicationAgenda of this Pack agenda 1 of 353no notices of petitions have been
1 received.
3. PRESENTATION: UPDATE ON COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORT MODEL (COMET) Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment
The Cabinet Panel will receive a presentation from Sue Jackson and Rupert Thacker covering COMET, a suite of models covering Hertfordshire and the surrounding area and comprising: - Highway model – all A, B & C roads, - Public Transport model (scheduled bus and rail services), - Demand model – Links models and allows tests of time shifts and mode shift.
4. TRANSPORT VISION- DRAFT LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROPOSALS AND PROJECT UPDATE Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment
5. RAIL STRATEGY Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment
6. INTERCITY WEST COAST RAIL FRANCHISE CONSULTATION Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment
7. A120 STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT – STANDON CONSULTATION UPDATE Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment
8. REVIEW OF HERTFORDSHIRE’S LOCAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY – ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment
9. GROWTH DEAL ROUND 3 – UPDATE ON PROPOSED BIDS Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment
10 ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING & TRANSPORT PERFORMANCE MONITOR Report of the Chief Executive & Director of Environment
11. OTHER PART I BUSINESS
Such Part I (public) business which, if the Chairman agrees, is of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration.
PART II (‘CLOSED’) AGENDA
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
There are no items of Part II business on this agenda. If Part II business is notified the Chairman will move:-
“That under Section 100(A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item/s of business on the grounds that it/they involve/s the likely disclosureAgenda of exempt Pack 2 information of 353 as defined in paragraph/s
2 ……. of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the said Act and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.”
If you require further information about this agenda please contact Theresa Baker, Democratic Services, on telephone no (01992 556545) or email [email protected].
Agenda documents are also available on the internet at: http://www.hertsdirect.org/hccmeetings
Agenda Pack 3 of 353
3
Minutes
To: All Members of the From: Legal, Democratic & Statutory Services Environment, Planning and Ask for: Theresa Baker Transport Cabinet Panel, Chief Ext: 26545 Executive, Chief Officers, All officers named for ‘actions’
ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING AND TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL, 10 MAY 2016
ATTENDANCE
MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
P A Ruffles (substituting for David Andrews), D A Ashley (Chairman), N Bell, H K Crofton, A S B Walkington, N A Hollinghurst, M D M Muir, R Sangster, R H Smith, S J Taylor
Upon consideration of the agenda for the Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel meeting on 10 May 2016 as circulated, copy annexed, conclusions were reached and are recorded below:
Note: No conflicts of interest were declared by any member of the Cabinet Panel in relation to the matters on which conclusions were reached at this meeting.
PART I (‘OPEN’) BUSINESS ACTION 1. MINUTES
1.1 The Minutes of the Cabinet Panel meeting held on 8 March 2016 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
2. PUBLIC PETITIONS
2.1 There were no public petitions.
HIGH SPEED 2 - FORMAL RESPONSE OF HERTFORDSHIRE 3. COUNTY COUNCIL
[Officer Contact: Jenny Foster, Senior Planning Officer, (Tel: 01992 556245)]
3.1 The Panel received a report to update and inform Members of the progress of the High Speed 2 (HS2) scheme and subsequently to enable Cabinet and the County Council to consider a proposal to authorise a petition to the House of Lords opposing the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill. It also described the current level of engagement that theAgenda County Pack Council 4 of 353 had with HS2 Ltd on the scheme, the arrangements for joint working with Three Rivers 1
District Council and the need for community engagement. To clarify for Members the scenario and HS2 issues in relation to Hertfordshire, officers tabled maps of the proposed Old Shire Country Park and the Colne Valley including the main construction site and tunnel : HS2 Interactive Map;
TABLED Maps for Colne Valley HS2 Site Map: HS2 Compound & Tunnel; Proposed Old Shire Country Park.
3.2 Officers advised Members that, subsequent to the success of the Council’s first petition in the House of Commons against the HS2 Bill in May 2014 (which resolved detailed local access and environmental issues but most importantly slip roads on to the M25), additional provisions had been introduced by HS2 in respect of other petitioners’ issues. For Hertfordshire the most significant of these was AP4, which proposed a longer tunnel under the Chilterns and would result in more spoil and a longer construction period. Members were informed that the Council had submitted its comments on AP4 to HS2 in November 2015 but as yet had not received a response. Consequently a further petition against the Bill (Hybrid) was submitted to the House of Lords on 18 April 2016 to formally raise these concerns and negotiate their resolution with HS2 and the Secretary of State for Transport.
3.3 Officers updated the Panel that the first meeting between the County Council and HS2 to discuss the issues raised in the petition had just taken place on 9 May 2016.
3.4 The Panel noted that the 2.6km increase in length of the Chiltern Tunnel was not proportionate to the increase in construction time from 1 to 4 years and remarked that there may be reasons other than purely constructional. Officers commented that that the increased time frame could be due to having to tunnel deeper and a wider Northern Portal.
3.5 Concern was expressed about increased environmental impact, e.g. on air quality, when removing chalk from the tunnel in the summer months. Officers reported that the County Council had requested air quality monitoring every quarter as there was insufficient environmental impact data in HS2 documentation.
3.6 Changes to the profile of the landscape were discussed by Members particularly the impact on nearby West Hyde village and Maple Cross. Officers confirmed that HS2 projected a 3-10m increase in height across the land in general, which would obscure the trains from view and reduce noise levels. The exact height would depend on the quality of material extracted during tunnelling; e.g. the chalk may be tunnelled using slurry methods and the resultant material would require drying and ultimately may not be 2 CHAIRMAN’S INITIALS Agenda Pack 5 of 353
…………….
suitable for landscaping use. It was clarified that the land was currently chalky arable; the top soil would be stripped off and later replaced on top of the new profile made from the tunnelled chalk
3.7 The requirement for a direct link from the extraction site to the HS2 compound (e.g. exit of Denham Park Farm pit (sand and gravel and restoration site) and also the movement of any imported material via the M25 was emphasised by the Panel .
3.8 The proposed excavation of minerals at Pynesfield (due to come to the County Council Development Control Planning Committee on 26 May 2016) was raised by the Local Member. Excavation of minerals from this gravel pit prior to and during the HS2 process for use by HS2 was suggested, thus shortening disruption to the local community and reducing vehicle movements over the rest of Hertfordshire. Officers commented that use of the aggregate would be dependent on quality (as yet unknown) and thus HS2 were unwilling to specify Pynesfield as a specific source. HS2 wanted agreement of the Bill by the end of 2016 so that enabling works/ site preparation could begin in early 2017 and tunnel works in the second half of 2018. Officers further commented that construction of the site compound would involve major engineering works (e.g. embankments) and it was unlikely that gravel extraction from Pynesfield would be on line fast enough for use in this. In addition, specialist aggregate may have to be imported into the County.
3.9 Continuing on this theme, officers confirmed that as the Minerals Planning Authority, Hertfordshire had queried the management of local materials for the project as part of the currently submitted Petition; the most cost effective contractor would be chosen by HS2 who would themselves choose where their materials came from. Members noted that when required it might be cost effective to use local, less specialist materials e.g. sand / gravel.
3.10 Members highlighted the high water table in the area in view of the coming changes to the land profile and overlying material in relation to boring of the tunnel and potential aquifers; also in view of known fresh water aquifers under Pynesfield and other drainage issues. Officers confirmed that HS2 were currently working with the Environment Agency and the Flooding Authority on this issue; thus far no ground investigation surveys were yet to be carried out by HS2 in respect of the line and potential aquifers.
3.11 Responding to a Member’s comment that careful control of temporary arrangements during construction and traffic movements (e.g. traffic lights/ road cleaning) was essential to reduce disruption to the local community, officers advised that a route wide traffic management plan was being agreed by all relevant Authorities and HS2. Furthermore local transport plans are also being developed.
3 CHAIRMAN’S INITIALS Agenda Pack 6 of 353
…………….
3.12 In reply to Panel questions, officers confirmed that the Bill gave outline planning consent whilst more minor issues would have to be dealt with by a very prescriptive process as set out within the Hybrid Bill under Schedule 17. Additionally, it was unclear how many primary planning consents would arise but they would lead to an increased cycle of Development Control Committee (DCC). In addition, a change of Council constitution would be required to establish a subcommittee for the DCC and further delegated powers to officers.
3.13 In view of the fact that Hertfordshire would be receiving all the spoil from Buckinghamshire, Members expressed concern that HS2 had not undertaken a community engagement forum with Hertfordshire. The Chairman of the panel agreed to write to the Secretary of State J Tiley / for Transport, to emphasise the fact that this current petition had D Ashley arisen due to HS2’s lack of response to Hertfordshire’s questions arising from amendments to the first petition.
3.14 When the Local Member commented that to fully appreciate the issues, those involved with the project should visit the site rather than just examine maps and that HS2 had tentatively agreed to such a visit, officers commented that they would ask the Chief J Tiley/ Executive and Director of Environment to write to the House of J Foster Lords to invite them also.
3.15 At the Panel’s request officers agreed to circulate periodic updates J Foster / on the HS2 process. J Tiley
Conclusions:
3.16 The Panel recommended to Cabinet, that Cabinet recommend to County Council and that County Council agrees:-
(i) that it is expedient to oppose the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill ("the Bill") currently at the Select Committee stage in the House of Lords;
(ii) that the Chief Executive and Director of Environment, in consultation with the Executive Member for Environment, Planning & Transport be authorised to take all steps and do and perform all such acts on behalf of the County Council as he may consider necessary or expedient to carry the above Resolution into effect, including all steps required in respect of the petition submitted to the House of Lords on 18 April 2016 including if considered appropriate, to withdraw its opposition and petition in respect of the Bill;
(iii) that the Chief Executive and Director of Environment, in consultation with the Executive Member for Environment, Planning & Transport be authorised to agree the terms of any 4 CHAIRMAN’S INITIALS Agenda Pack 7 of 353
…………….
agreements or other documents with HS2 Ltd and Three Rivers District Council relating to the HS2 scheme;
(iv) that Hertfordshire County Council formally request that HS2 Ltd hold a community forum in the Maple Cross area;
(v) that Hertfordshire County Council seek promotion by HS2 Ltd of locally sourced natural resources in respect of construction materials.
3.17 Cabinet’s recommendation(s) to County Council will be reported orally and tabled at the County Council meeting.
4. OTHER PART I BUSINESS
There was no other business.
KATHRYN PETTITT CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER CHAIRMAN
5 CHAIRMAN’S INITIALS Agenda Pack 8 of 353
…………….
HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Agenda Item No.
ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING AND TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL 4 THURSDAY, 30 JUNE 2016 AT 10.00 AM
TRANSPORT VISION- DRAFT LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROPOSALS AND PROJECT UPDATE
Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment
Author: James Povey, Team Leader Transport Policy & Growth (Tel: 01992 556798)
Executive Members: Derrick Ashley, Environment, Planning and Transport
1 Purpose of report
1.1 The purpose of this report is to:
a) Update Members on the work undertaken to devise a new Local Transport Plan (LTP) Strategy which is a culmination of the Transport Vision project. This includes key policy proposals and the preferred package of major schemes proposed for inclusion.
b) Present Members with the draft LTP Strategy consultation summary that will be the focus of the public consultation exercise.
c) Update Members on the public consultation process and timescales.
2 Summary
2.1 The Transport Vision project to deliver a new spatial Transport Vision for Hertfordshire to 2050, as requested by the Highways and Waste Management Panel, has been underway since 2014. A new Local Transport Plan will conclude the Transport Vision project. Two Transport Vision reports have been produced to date and subject to stakeholder engagement. These, along with the gathering of other evidence including analysis of current travel patterns in the county, also forecast travel conditions taken from the new countywide transport model (COMET) have helped define the LTP Vision, Objectives and Strategy.
2.2 At their meeting on 8 March 2016, Panel were presented with a summary of stakeholder feedback on the Vision Stage 2 report, the newly defined Transport Vision and LTP Objectives, and the Long List of major schemes being considered for inclusion in the LTP Strategy.
Agenda Pack 9 of 353 1
2.3 Since March work has continued to develop the strategy based on a consideration of evidence under each of the LTP objectives, and to further appraise and develop the Long List of major schemes down to a small number of schemes that represent a preferred package.
3 Recommendations
3.1 It is requested that Panel:
a) Endorses the content of the draft Vision consultation document attached at Appendix 1 to the report
b) Recommends to Cabinet that Cabinet approves the content of the Draft Vision document for public consultation as set out in the report
c) Recommends to Cabinet that the Chief Executive and Director of Environment in consultation with the Executive Member for Environment, Planning and Transport be authorised to approve the final version of the public consultation document.
4 The Proposed LTP Strategy
4.1 The need for and composition of a new LTP cannot be understood without reference to the challenges and opportunities faced by the county now and in the future. Page 8 and 9 of the consultation summary outlines these, and key messages to take from this are: a. Significant population growth inside and outside the county in future decades will fuel increased travel demand. b. Relatively low levels of bus, rail for local trips, walking and cycling suggests increased travel demand will translate into significant traffic and congestion growth. c. A recent history of negligible mode shift from cars to more sustainable modes, coupled with reduced council budgets for supporting these modes, suggests achieving future mode shift will be very challenging. d. Building our way out of trouble, through a programme of road and junction capacity increases is not an option. Such an approach would be undeliverable in terms of financial cost and be very environmentally damaging. e. It would also be potentially counterproductive given that evidence suggests this would perpetuate increased traffic at peak travel times and worsen traffic pressures elsewhere on the network, undoing the initial benefits of the intervention. Furthermore such an approach will reduce the quality and attraction of Hertfordshire as a place.
4.2 A continuation of current transport strategy in the county is highly unlikely to address the current and future challenges faced by the county, and will not be sufficient to deliver the identified transport vision and LTP objectives.
4.3 Much of the existing LTP3 is supportive of the newly defined objectives, and in recognition of this the proposed strategy highlights a select few proposals that represent a departure from the LTP3, and which alongside the major schemes should be the focus of the consultation. Agenda Pack 10 of 353 2
4.4 These key policy proposals are detailed on pages 11-18 of the Strategy Consultation Summary.
4.5 The full draft Strategy document will include greater detail on the challenges and opportunities and evidence around each objective which supports the Strategy. It will also reference how existing LTP3 approaches and initiatives support the strategy and should continue. This will be published alongside the consultation summary.
5. The Proposed LTP Major Schemes
5.1 The identification of the LTP major schemes has followed recommended DfT scheme appraisal guidance (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transport-analysis- guidance-webtag ). This will ensure the major schemes identified have a robust evidence base and justification, and strong business cases can be developed for them to maximise their chances at being granted funding and delivered.
5.2 The Long List of potential major schemes seen by Panel in March was subject to a sifting exercise to arrive at a smaller number of schemes that could be appraised in greater detail. The method for this was to appraise each of the Long List Schemes against a number of criteria, including:
a. Contribution to the LTP objectives b. Feasibility, planning, business case eligibility and funding risks c. Potential to address an existing severe issue d. Strategic significance
Further considerations in ruling some schemes out of the shortlist included whether the scheme was likely to require significant revenue funding, and so considered unfeasible in the current climate, and how they interacted or conflicted with other schemes on the list. It also included filtering out those schemes that would need to be led by Highways England or Network Rail, and hence do not require the County Council to develop their business case.
5.3 This process resulted in the long list of 97 major scheme ideas being reduced down to a shortlist of 9 concept schemes. Some of these schemes remained unchanged from the long list, but others were modified as thinking on them had developed, and some were merged with other compatible schemes.
5.4 A technical report by consultants AECOM High level project appraisal of long list of schemes for Hertfordshire Transport Vision fully explains this exercise. It will be published as part of the Transport Vision evidence base during the LTP Strategy public consultation.
5.5 Having identified a shortlist of concept schemes, the next stage of work analysed and appraised these schemes in greater detail to identify a preferred package of schemes that could be subject to testing in the COMET model and included in the LTP Strategy. The preferred package was identified by appraising variants of the shortlisted concept schemes (i.e. where the concept was for public transport, rail and bus options were considered). This resulted in the identification of the better
Agenda Pack 11 of 353 3
performing concepts to take forward, and clarified what form these schemes should take.
5.6 It is this preferred package that is included in the consultation summary on pages 18-20. A summary explanation of what the Major Scheme Shortlist included, and why some of these have not been included in the preferred package of schemes is below:
Shortlisted Concept Within Preferred Explanation Package?
Passenger Transit Yes – As Bus Rapid BRT Option deemed more Expressway Hemel- Transit between Hemel feasible and better value for Harlow Hempstead, Watford, St money, whilst delivering Albans, WelHat & Hertford. comparable benefits to light rail. Business case east of A1m less strong, hence scheme limited to Hertford.
Quality Inter-Urban No Uncertainty over how well Cycle Routes utilised scheme would be. Schemes could be delivered without major scheme funding.
A414 Junction Yes – As A414 Highway Upgrades Package Improvements (junctions including A1m J3&4, Park Street, London Colney.
Hertford Bypass Yes – But a non-bypass Alternative option included due (Sustainable Travel & to uncertainty over how the Parking Demand bypass would perform, plus a Management) option also need to consider more included. sustainable alternatives.
Sustainable Travel Yes - Hemel Hempstead, Towns Watford, Stevenage, St Albans
M1 Passenger Transit No Business case not considered Connection (Luton to very strong. Only bus options Maylands & Hemel considered feasible/value for Hempstead) money.
M1 Highway Access to Yes Maylands (Enterprise Zone) and Hemel Hempstead East West Passenger No Both schemes not deliverable Transit Route Luton to until post 2031, with weak Stansted Agenda Pack 12 of 353 4
East West Road Luton No business case based on to Stansted current local land use plans. As post 2031 plans develop schemes should be reconsidered.
5.7 The testing and analysis of the preferred major schemes in the COMET model is not yet complete. Cabinet approval of the LTP Strategy is requested on the basis that the preferred package will not change in light of the testing. The final consultation materials will include some additional detail on the scheme descriptions and benefits. The final technical report by consultants on the exercise to narrow the shortlist of major scheme concepts down to a preferred package of major schemes, and the subsequent testing in COMET of these will be published as part of the LTP Strategy evidence base.
6. Strategy Delivery
6.1 Page 21 of the LTP Consultation Summary considers how the proposed Strategy can be delivered, in view of public spending reductions in the last six years. It is unlikely the strategy can be delivered without additional funding sources being found. Transport revenue funding in particular is very constrained with this having been cut by £10.3m in the last six years.
6.2 Central government grants and developer funding will have a role to play particularly with regard to infrastructure funding, but this is unlikely to be sufficient. A local road user charging scheme is considered unfeasible currently, but a Workplace Parking Levy has a number of merits as a policy option, which suggests it could play a key role in delivering the LTP objectives and necessary investment in sustainable transport provision. The Consultation summary seeks views from the public on whether a Workplace Parking Levy scheme should be investigated by the Council. Any scheme would take some years to investigate, develop and implement and be subject to further public consultation.
7. Public Consultation Timescale and Process
7.1 Given the timescale for the outputs from the Major Scheme COMET testing and analysis, and to avoid consulting over the summer holidays, the public consultation on the LTP Strategy is now planned to commence in September 2016. This will be a three month consultation. A new LTP Strategy is then planned to be adopted in 2017.
7.2 Cabinet will be requested to grant delegated authority to the Director of Environment in consultation with the Executive Member for Planning, Transport and Environment to approve the final wording and presentation of the consultation materials.
Agenda Pack 13 of 353 5
8. Financial Implications
8.1 The consultation exercise can be covered within existing budgets.
8.2 The delivery of the eventual LTP proposals will have very significant financial implications. It is likely that a variety of funding sources will have to be identified and schemes relying on Central Government funding will have to meet the criteria required for entry to funding programmes. These implications will be covered in the Draft LTP 4 document to be produced in 2017.
9. Equalities Implications
9.1 The proposed LTP Strategy outlined in the consultation summary has been the subject of ongoing equalities impact assessment, and the report for this stage will be available for Cabinet to consider alongside the draft consultation document
9.2 When considering proposals placed before Members it is important that they are fully aware of, and have themselves rigorously considered the equality implications of the decision that they are making.
9.3 Rigorous consideration will ensure that proper appreciation of any potential impact of that decision on the County Council’s statutory obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty. As a minimum this requires decision makers to read and carefully consider the content of any Equalities Impact Assessment (EQiA) produced by officers.
9.4 Rigorous consideration will ensure that proper appreciation of any potential impact of that decision on the County Council’s statutory obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty. As a minimum this requires decision makers to read and carefully consider the content of any Equalities Impact Assessment (EQiA) produced by officers.
9.5 The Equality Act 2010 requires the County Council when exercising its functions to have due regard to the need to (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other conduct prohibited under the Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 are age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation.
9.6 An Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) has been undertaken and is annexed at Appendix A to the report.
Background Information Environment, Planning & Transport Cabinet Panel - 8 March 2016 Highways & Waste Management Cabinet Panel - 4 February 2014 - Minutes - Item 7: Review of the Transport Planning Framework
Agenda Pack 14 of 353 6
Appendix A Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
STEP 1: Responsibility and involvement
Title of proposal/ Draft Local Head of Service or Jon Tiley project/strategy/ Transport Plan Business Manager procurement/policy summer 2016 public consultation document Names of those Judy Cameron- Lead officer Judy Cameron- involved in Rollo contact details: Rollo completing the EqIA: Tina Gigg Date completed: 21 June 2016 Review date: Autumn 2016
STEP 2: Objectives of proposal and scope of assessment – what do you want to achieve?
Proposal objectives: 1.1 Overall objective: Hertfordshire County Council is updating the what you want to achieve intended outcomes County’s transport planning framework to ensure that the purpose and need transport network supports future growth. The new Local Transport Plan for Hertfordshire to 2050 is a strategic plan for transport infrastructure that will set out the priorities for investment in the network in the short, medium and long term, up to 2050. It will also guide and support local land use planning decisions. 1.2 Purpose and Need: The draft LTP4 strategy document/ Transport Vision will form the foundation of the case for major investment in Hertfordshire’s transport infrastructure. It will also set out the policies and key future transport schemes in the set of documents that will follow next summer after the public consultation in September 2016. In autumn 2015 there was a stakeholder consultation on the Stage 2 document which categorised suggested major schemes into 4 packages of scheme types – Highways, Public Transport, Sustainable Transport/Demand Responsive Transport and a blended mix of schemes. Accompanying this was an equalities impact assessment dated October 2015.
Since then the Stage 3 process has seen the development of a draft LTP strategy which is geared towards prosperity, place and people. The contents of the new draft plan, recognises the need to take more account of and change the priority towards vulnerable transport users and groups, over car users. It includes a number of challenges to be addressed including socio- economic inequalities, health inequalities, an ageing population and social inclusion. Solutions include improving public transport inter-urban connectivity through supportive infrastructure.
This updated EqIA considers the results of the Stage 3 LTP Agenda Pack 15 of 353 1
Appendix A Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
process as of end of June 2016, which has led to development of a series of proposals and major schemes for inclusion in a future LTP strategy document. This includes a list of 5 major transport schemes which have been sifted using the Early assessment and sifting tool (EAST). EAST includes risk assessment ranking for a) socio distributional impacts and b) wellbeing. This list of 5 schemes will need to be further appraised using the COMET model. Stakeholders: Everyone who is a user of local transport, drives a car or in Who will be affected: fact travels anywhere in the county will be affected – the the public, partners, staff, public, residents, people passing through the county, service users, local Member etc businesses, plus organisations who work for and service the transport industry including train and bus operators. Also partnership bodies – Hertfordshire district/borough councils Neighbouring local authorities Hertfordshire LEP Hertfordshire County Council – TAS, SPE, Highways County Council and local Members.
The plan could have impacts on the following protected characteristics: - Age (older/young people) - Disability (including learning disability) - Race - Pregnancy and maternity (including mothers with children) - Religion or belief - Sex - Sexual orientation Carers (by association with any of the above)
STEP 3: Available data and monitoring information
Relevant equality information What the data tell us about equalities For example: Community profiles / service user demographics, data and monitoring information (local and national), similar or previous EqIAs, complaints, audits or inspections, local knowledge and consultations. This assessment has used a range of information for its analysis.
Mapping analysis Mosaic profiles of areas in the Mosaic data has been used to categorise county. For example of the A1M households along wards along the A1M corridor and detailed SDI corridor into household ‘types’. information from the first Local For LSTF1 we undertook a detailed analysis Sustainable Transport Bid which of household types and their related travel concentrated on Hemel Hempstead, behaviour which we have drawn on for this St Albans and Watford. analysis. Agenda Pack 16 of 353 2
Appendix A Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) IMD mapping shows where the most maps which rank areas by vulnerable groups are likely to be, this deprivation. coincides largely with where there are higher than average obesity levels in children.
Accessibility Maps based on TRACC Maps have been produced that show areas software used by DfT and used in of the county that are less accessible by HCC transport policy team. public transport (rail and bus); mainly rural areas where there are fewer bus services and no rail links. Local knowledge/ values/associated work Feedback from 10 years of working Anecdotal evidence from meetings shows with transport issues for disabled disabled groups (with physical and/or people’s group. (Minutes were taken learning difficulties) are more likely to be at every meeting and details are dependent on public transport and taxis available on request) because they may be unable to drive, walk far or cycle. Or they may have adaptations to vehicles to allow them to drive.
Previous consultations with Previous consultations have revealed that equalities groups and previous transport disadvantaged groups tend to be EqIA’s for LTP3 and LTP daughter older people, disabled people and those documents (particularly relevant are living in rural areas without access to a car. those for the rail and bus strategies Younger people may also be disadvantaged both undertaken in 2015. if they are unable to afford transport costs.
‘Attitudes towards cycling’ – annual The TfL report reveals that in London and report from Transport for London nearby areas BME groups, older people, (TfL). and women (to a lesser extent) are less likely to cycle. Statistical information
Office of National Statistics ONS predicts that by 2021 the number of over 65s will have increased by 22.4% and the number of over 80 year olds will have increased by 28.2%. The population of Hertfordshire in 2013 was 1.14million. The population projections for the county suggest an increase of approximately 24% over the 25 year period from 2012 to 2037. 2011 Census Analysis, England and The 2011 Census shows that the Wales Hertfordshire population has become increasingly ethnically diverse over the last ten years. 19.2% of residents identified themselves in the 2011 Census as other than White British. Over a quarter of school children in Hertfordshire are from BME Agenda Pack 17 of 353 3
Appendix A Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
backgrounds. The largest non-UK national population is Polish.
Community Profile Information on The community profile data shows that http://iatlaswebpd02/IAS/profiles/ and 68,000 in the county have a disability, this Joint Strategic Needs Assessment - includes 23,000 people with a severe (JSNA) information on Hertsdirect physical disability. Around 26,000 people web site. have a learning disability.
2011 Census Analysis, Method of Travel to Work in England and Wales
Hertfordshire’s Traffic and Transport Data Report 2015
Passenger Focus – the experience 5% of rail users have a disability/long-term of disabled rail users. NRPS 2013 illness. 26% of those are over 65. 41% have mobility issues, 22% hearing impairment, 15% sight impairment, 8% learning difficulties, 2% speech impairment. Those with a visual impairment were least satisfied with stations and trains. Stations with least satisfaction concerned train times and platforms (77%), personal security (64%) and shelter facilities (62%) Train issues concerned ease of getting on and off train and personal security.
Equality and Human Rights Examples of disability-related harassment Commission: hidden in plain sight. on public transport: disabled people are more likely to be victims of crime than non- disabled. Fear of crime and its impact are greater for disabled people, harassment takes place in many settings, including on public transport and in public places.
ACPO hate crime data 2010 In Hertfordshire there were 1208 reported hate crimes; of these 1031 – race; 77- sexual orientation; 36 – faith; 29 anti- Semitic; 24 – disability; 11 – transgender.
STEP 4: Impact Assessment – Service Users, communities and partners (where relevant)
Guidance on groups of service users to consider within each protected group can be found here
Protected Potential for differential What reasonable mitigations characteristic impact (positive or negative) can you propose? Age Hertfordshire has a growing The major transport schemes in population of older people the final LTP4 should ideally Agenda Pack 18 of 353 4
Appendix A Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
Protected Potential for differential What reasonable mitigations characteristic impact (positive or negative) can you propose? aged over 65. (Rising from improve accessible linkages 168,000 to a projected figure between residents’ localities and of 300,400 in 2037). Census passenger transport 2011 tells us that 14.32% of interchanges. This includes residents are limited in their demand responsive transport day to day activities they can and car or taxi services provided undertake. Many of these are by healthcare and day-care likely to be older people. facilities.
Older and disabled people are HCC should continue to press less likely to be driving for more stations to be made vehicles, therefore for many of accessible wherever feasible. this group demand From the beginning 2020 it will responsive, lift share and be unlawful to use a passenger public transport are options to rail vehicle that does not comply car travel. with the regulations that will help people with reduced mobility. Physically accessing stations is an issue for many older Train and bus stations should be people. Of the 20 busiest manned wherever possible, stations in the county approx. Additionally there are other only 40% have fully disabled deterrents to crime such as access. lighting, using designing out crime guidelines in passenger Passenger focus figures transport interchanges and cycle above reveal that disabled /pedestrian routes and installing groups (including older CCTV. people) are more likely to Increasingly travel information is have problems getting on and only available in electronic off buses and trains and format. Posters and using worries about being victims of appropriate media targeted at crime. older people should be use to promote discounted Many older people, concessionary fares and particularly those aged 75 and services aimed at older people over have never used the such as booking ahead for help internet. to access a train. Ensure there is safety signage Safety needs to be addressed on cycle routes in suggested on cycle routes. Older people sustainable travel towns to warn often feel vulnerable when cyclists to give way for there are shared routes for pedestrians, if they are on a pedestrians and cyclists. shared route. Disability As above for older people, Any transport schemes in the Including Learning physically disabled people are final LTP4 should ideally Disability more likely to have problems improve accessible linkages physically accessing public between residents’ localities and transport due to immobility. passenger transport interchanges. This includes Agenda Pack 19 of 353 5
Appendix A Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
Protected Potential for differential What reasonable mitigations characteristic impact (positive or negative) can you propose? demand responsive transport and car or taxi services provided by healthcare and day-care facilities. As scheme proposals come forward, any new scheme should ensure that it has considered feasible design features that are inclusive for all people. Street clutter should be minimised to help disabled people use pedestrian routes more safely. . HCC should continue to press for more stations to be made accessible wherever feasible.
Residents with learning To mitigate hate crime incidents difficulties often lack the Train and bus stations should be confidence to use passenger manned wherever possible, transport and may be fearful Additionally there are other of hate crime which deters deterrents to crime such as independent travel. lighting, using designing out crime guidelines in passenger transport interchanges and cycle /pedestrian routes and installing CCTV.
Increasingly travel information Posters and appropriate media is only available in electronic should be used (for example in format, ticket machines may day centres/GP surgeries) to be the only option at certain promote discounted/ disabled rail stations at certain times of concessionary fares and the day. services aimed at disabled people such as booking ahead for help to access a train. Audio messages for sight impaired, and websites use wording which can be easily translated into computer generated speech.
There are some further education colleges that can assist with teaching independent travel – this can help people with a learning disabilities get to places they visit regularly on Agenda Pack 20 of 353 6
Appendix A Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
Protected Potential for differential What reasonable mitigations characteristic impact (positive or negative) can you propose? their own.
Race People of certain races may To mitigate hate crime incidents be more at risk or have an train and bus stations should be increased perception of risk of manned wherever possible, hate crimes. Additionally there are other deterrents to crime such as lighting, using designing out crime guidelines in passenger transport interchanges and cycle /pedestrian routes and installing CCTV. People with English as a The community profile (link in second language may find Step 3 above) shows which written information difficult to languages are dominant in understand. different districts/boroughs. However the census for 2011 says that less than 1% of residents cannot speak English well or at all. Pictorial or plain English should be used where it will assist with service delivery. People with English as a second language may also use the internet, therefore websites should have the ability to be translated. Gender People in the process of To mitigate hate crime incidents reassignment gender re-assignment may be train and bus stations should be more at risk or have an manned wherever possible, increased perception of hate Additionally there are other crimes. deterrents to crime such as lighting, using designing out crime guidelines in passenger transport interchanges and cycle /pedestrian routes and installing CCTV.
Pregnancy and Pregnant women and parents As with disability above, if maternity with pushchairs encounter transport infrastructure is similar issues as disabled adjusted with ease of access in people with possible limited mind – i.e. dropped kerbs, step mobility, needing to rest more free access, manned stations, often and step free access. seating etc., then this will be helpful to this group too. Religion or belief People of certain religions To mitigate hate crime incidents may be more at risk or have Train and bus stations should be an increased perception of manned wherever possible, Agenda Pack 21 of 353 7
Appendix A Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
Protected Potential for differential What reasonable mitigations characteristic impact (positive or negative) can you propose? risk of hate crimes. Additionally there are other deterrents to crime such as lighting, using designing out crime guidelines in passenger transport interchanges and cycle /pedestrian routes and installing CCTV Sex Women travelling alone may Train and bus stations should be have an increased perception manned wherever possible, of risk of attack. Additionally there are other deterrents to crime such as Predominantly more women lighting, using designing out are responsible for childcare crime guidelines in passenger and caring for elderly, sick or transport interchanges and cycle disabled relatives. /pedestrian routes and installing CCTV Elderly women are less likely See also below in carers to drive as they did not learn section. to drive, or they may no longer have access to car transport if they live alone, thus they maybe reliant on public transport. Sexual orientation People of certain sexual Train and bus stations should be orientations may be more at manned wherever possible, risk or have an increased Additionally there are other perception of risk, of hate deterrents to crime such as crimes. lighting, using designing out crime guidelines in passenger transport interchanges and cycle /pedestrian routes and installing CCTV Marriage & civil n/a n/a partnership Carers (by Carers for the elderly or As with disability above, if association with disabled people would benefit transport infrastructure is any of the above) from improved accessibility adjusted with ease of access in and targeted information mind – i.e. dropped kerbs, step which would help them with free access, manned stations, their journeys. seating etc., then this will be helpful to this group.
Information of benefit to carers – such as integrated ticketing, discounted fares and assistance during the journey should be made available through relevant channels – such as Carers in Agenda Pack 22 of 353 8
Appendix A Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
Protected Potential for differential What reasonable mitigations characteristic impact (positive or negative) can you propose? Hertfordshire, Libraries, Day Care Centres , GP surgeries and so on. Opportunity to advance equality of opportunity and/or foster good relations (Please refer to the guidance for more information on the public sector duties)
STEP 5: Gaps identified
Gaps identified When the LTP4 strategy document goes out to public Do you need to collect consultation in September 2016, a summary of the content will more data/information or be translated into easy-read for those less able to understand carry out consultation? technical longer documents. The consultation guidance document published by HCC earlier this year will be used. STEP 6: Other impacts
Consider if your proposal has the potential (positive and negative) to impact on areas such as health and wellbeing, crime and disorder and community relations. There is more information in the guidance.
STEP 7: Conclusion of your analysis
Select one conclusion of your analysis Give details No equality impacts identified No change required to proposal.
Minimal equality impacts identified This draft LTP proposal advocates challenging the x Adverse impacts have been identified, but growth and dominance of individual car use, and have been objectively justified (provided addressing socio-economic inequalities and the you do not unlawfully discriminate). transport issues that arise with an ageing Ensure decision makers consider the population. It’s objectives include enhancing cumulative effect of how a number of connectivity and accessibility. The 5 shortlisted decisions impact on equality. major schemes will all be assessed through the COMET model. Two of the schemes will definitely benefit those with protected characteristics as they will lead to more reliable public transport and sustainable transport, the other 3 may also lead to an increase in public transport as traffic congestion is alleviated. More in depth analysis of the schemes will be undertaken in the next phase of work next year, prior to another public consultation exercise.
Accessibility and connectivity for all is the clear message. Also providing information in formats that all equalities groups can access is very important.
Agenda Pack 23 of 353 9
Appendix A Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
Select one conclusion of your analysis Give details Potential equality impacts identified Take ‘mitigating action’ to remove barriers or better advance equality. Complete the action plan in the next section. Major equality impacts identified Stop and remove the policy The adverse effects are not justified, cannot be mitigated or show unlawful discrimination. Ensure decision makers understand the equality impact.
STEP 8: Action plan
Issue or opportunity identified relating to: Officer Responsible Mitigation measures Action proposed Further research and target Consultation proposal date Monitor and review Information provision needs to Investigate through the marketing Judy be in accessible format for team in Transport Access and Safety Cameron - different equality groups. (TAS), how visually impaired people Rollo can use IT technology to its best April 2017 advantage and how HCC’s web team intend to reach groups who cannot access the internet easily, through improved technology on the new web site. Also find out how non-English speakers can access the content of the new Herts web site. As proposed projects come Monitor through the rail liaison officer Judy forward, adjustments need to what is currently offered by each rail Cameron- be in place for disabled people. station and what train operating Rollo These include help at stations, companies are proposing to do. Liaise and dropped kerbs for crossing with rail operators for funding for Winter 2016. roads and accessing public accessible stations and bid for DfT transport. funds to make access easier for all; Undertake an updated EqIA next year when more information is available. Improve accessibility between Monitor what is happening with Judy where residents live and regards offering residents Dial-a-ride Cameron- transport interchanges. and community transport now that it Rollo has been transferred to Adult Care Services as of Spring 2016. Continue 2017 to monitor the use of public transport ;this information should be available through TAS. Agenda Pack 24 of 353 10
Appendix A Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
This EqIA has been reviewed and signed off by:
Head of Service or Business Manager: Date:
Equality Action Group Chair: Date:
HCC’s Diversity Board requires the Equality team to compile a central list of EqIAs so a random sample can be quality assured. Each Equality Action Group is encouraged to keep a forward plan of key service decisions that may require an EqIA, but please can you ensure the Equality team is made aware of any EqIAs completed so we can add them to our list. (email: [email protected]). Thank you.
Agenda Pack 25 of 353 11
Appendix 1
Front Cover
PROPOSED LTP STRATEGY CONTENT SUMMARY FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Agenda Pack 26 of 353 1
Foreword by Cabinet Member for Environment, Planning and Transport, Cllr Derrick Ashley
E.g. Along the lines of the Horizons article:
How is Hertfordshire’s transport system going to cope with the expected growth of the county’s population and economy over the next 35 years?
By 2050 forecasts predict that the population will have grown by around 400,000 to over 1.5m, with huge impact on congestion and journey times particularly during peak travel periods. Simply planning to increase the number and capacity of roads is probably unaffordable and would have a damaging effect on our natural environment even if the money was available.
That is why Hertfordshire County Council is developing a new long-term Vision for Transport that sets out how we can manage this expected extra strain on our network.
We are looking at a wide range of options at this stage include rail improvements; enhancing walking and cycling routes in larger urban areas; better public transport between towns; and using modern technology to facilitate more shared transport schemes such as lift-shares and car clubs. National government might look at more controversial schemes such as ‘road- pricing’ and driver-less cars!
But, before coming to any conclusions, we want to hear your views
Agenda Pack 27 of 353 2
What is the Local Transport Plan? A Local Transport Plan (LTP) is a statutory, long term transport plan that the County Council is required to produce and regularly review.
Why is a new LTP needed? The current Local Transport Plan (LTP3) was adopted in 2011 and covers the period up until 2031. It is good practice to review such plans every five years, but more importantly there are three key reasons why there is a need for a new LTP. These being:
A new planning and economic context and direction for Hertfordshire Deficiencies in the existing transport network that jeopardise the delivery of planned growth An existing transport strategy that will not meet future challenges
A continuation of the existing transport strategy is not an option if Hertfordshire is to remain an attractive place to live, work and invest in.
What will the LTP do? Provide the overarching framework and long term transport vision to guide all future transport planning activity Guide and support local land use planning decisions within and beyond the current Local Plan period (which broadly covers the next 15 years). Identify some of the new major transport schemes required over the next 30 years to support local growth and development Provide the evidence base and justification for future funding and policy decisions. Support discussions with partners such as Highways England, Network Rail and neighbouring authorities in relation to their long term plans which will impact on Hertfordshire’s transport network
LTP structure The structure of the new LTP is set out in Fig XX. This consultation is focussed on the content of the draft Local Transport Plan 4 Strategy document which sets out the Vision, Objectives and Strategic approach.
Agenda Pack 28 of 353 3
Fig XX: LTP Structure The overall LTP comprises the Strategy (the subject of this public consultation), the updated LTP Policy Document, LTP Daughter Documents and Supporting Documents. Not all transport improvements and activity are detailed in the Strategy, and some will be derived from more in depth analysis of local areas, corridors and transport modes/activities. This will be performed by the Daughter Documents which will be subject to their own separate consultations. The planned delivery of all identified transport improvements and activity will be outlined in the Implementation Plan and Progress Reports.
Pathway to the new LTP There is a considerable evidence base underpinning this transport strategy. This includes a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Transport Vision Reports, which were both subject to engagement with stakeholders. The Stage 1 report contributed to the definition of what a positive future transport vision for Hertfordshire would be, and the challenges and issues faced by the county. Stage 2 provided a greater understanding of how transport can support local economic growth, and outlined some broad transport
Agenda Pack 29 of 353 4
strategy options and packages of schemes to support this. It also considered the interaction of land use and transport planning during and beyond the current Local Plan period (up to 2031). These reports and the stakeholder feedback received have directly informed the vision, challenges and issues, and objectives defined by the LTP, which the strategy is based on.
Another important source of evidence has been the development of a new countywide transport multi modal transport model (COMET). This has provided a better understanding of travel patterns, future transport conditions and the ability to test the impact and value of the proposed major transport schemes detailed later in this document.
As well as the prevailing national and local policy context, the new draft LTP Strategy has been guided during its development by a consideration of various impact assessments (Strategic Environmental, Equalities and Habitats Regulation) which are also available for comment during this public consultation, and will be updated alongside the adopted Strategy.
The Vision The vision (Fig XX) provides a shared understanding of Hertfordshire in the future, helping to clarify how transport can contribute to its realisation.
Fig XX: A future vision for Hertfordshire
Agenda Pack 30 of 353 5
The Current Transport System and Likely Improvements There are already a number of planned and proposed transport improvements that are likely to be delivered over the next 20 years. These are illustrated in Fig XX. Collectively these will help tackle existing transport problems, and support the delivery of housing and employment growth.
The map includes schemes which are already being delivered such as the A5-M1 link road, Harlow A414 junction improvements and Watford Health Campus New Road. It also includes schemes which have funding secured and so are very likely to be delivered such as St Albans City Station, Metropolitan Line Extension, M25 Junction 25 improvements, A1M Junction 6-8 Smart Motorway, A602 Improvements, A120 Little Hadham Bypass and Stevenage Station New Fifth Platform. Other schemes shown are at various stages of implementation, but are considered to have a realistic prospect of being delivered.
The schemes are predominantly either rail or highway schemes. Of the rail improvements it is the committed Metropolitan Line Extension, and proposed Crossrail 2 and Stevenage Station upgrade schemes that represent significant rail enhancements that will serve as catalysts for regeneration, development and wider local transport improvements. The proposed High Speed 2 whilst not serving Hertfordshire in any way does pass through part of the county and will impact on the transport network during its construction phase.
It remains a priority for the county council to seek transport improvements which address traffic congestion on the A1m and A10 corridors. A1m Junction 6-8 Smart Motorway, Crossrail 2 and the West Anglia Mainline 4 Tracking schemes which are strongly supported.
Next Page- Fig XX: The current transport system and likely future improvements [MAP TO BE UPDATED WITH LUTON A1/M6 LINK, IMPROVED KEY, ROAD & RAIL LABELS, TITLE]
Agenda Pack 31 of 353 6
Agenda Pack 32 of 353 7
Challenges and Opportunities
Drawing on the Vision Stage 1 and Stage 2 Reports, as well as the development and outputs from the COMET Transport Model, there are a range of transport challenges and opportunities that inform the LTP objectives and Strategy. Some of the statistics concerning these are shown in Fig XX, and the challenges and opportunities are illustrated in Fig XX.
Fig XX: Infographic being developed to include following statistics:
Current projections estimate the county population will grow by an additional 170,000 people between 2016-2031, a 15% increase. Over the same period there will be 121,000 extra households, an 18% increase. Peak period journey times will on average increase 25% in 2031 compared to what they take today. So a journey of an hour today will take an extra 15 minutes. A programme of road widening and building to address this traffic growth and congestion will be extremely expensive, environmentally damaging and increase carbon emissions. There has been negligible reductions in car use and mode shift to bus, rail, walking and cycling in the last 15 years in the county. Transport revenue funding (which funds road safety, sustainable transport and some maintenance activities) has reduced by £10.3m in the past 6 years. A 14% reduction. In Hertfordshire 17.7% of journeys to work are under 3 miles, 27.5% under 5 miles, and 43.2% under 10 miles. Bus use to work is a mere 3% compared to national average of 7% Cycling use for journeys to work by residents of larger towns is no more than 6% Analysis of travel patterns suggests there is scope to increase mode share by rail, bus, walking and cycling. Forecasts to 2050 suggest the proportion of the county population over 65 will go from 16% to 23%. Hertfordshire has 30 declared Air Quality Management Areas and approx. 514 deaths per year are thought to be attributable to fine particulate air pollution (PM2.5). In 2014 there were 3,690 road collision casualties, with 391 classed as killed or seriously injured, 34 of these were fatalities. Overweight and obesity costs the county an estimated £484m per year 7% if the population do not find it easy to access key services, and 19% of people think bus service provision is a major issue.
Agenda Pack 33 of 353 8
Fig XX: Challenges and Opportunities DIAGRAM BEING DEVELOPED Unprecedented housing growth & Existing transport deficiencies and a economic development future network struggling to cope Reinvigorating new towns Congestion, unreliable journey Reinforced settlement pattern & times & network deficiencies growth on town peripheries Limited modal shift to date New community & growth at Low levels of sustainable mode Harlow use Airport expansion & employment Travel patterns indicate public growth transport underutilised Enterprise Zones- Herts Land use planning to 2031 & Envirotech, Luton & Harlow beyond influencing levels of car Growth concentrated on A1(m), use A414 & A10/M11 Forecast traffic growth, London Stansted Cambridge congestion, deteriorating reliability Growth Corridor & & journey times Luton/Dunstable/Houghton Regis Rail capacity pressures growth London Growth Retaining Public spending Socio-economic Hertfordshire’s pressures and local inequalities, housing character & enhancing governance evolution affordability and health its places - Budget reductions, - Areas of deprivation - Environmentally particularly revenue - Worsening levels of sensitive & spend local housing protected locations - Array of public affordability - Urban renewal and agencies and - Access to services regeneration service providers and risk of social with transport roles exclusion - Devolution agenda - Unhealthy lifestyles and health inequalities - Air quality & road casualties CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES Society Technology Environmental Politics Ageing Alternative Green Political population forms of Energy Infrastructure & Engagement Internet, Green Travel Social Inclusion Broadband & Climate Political Smartphones Change & agendas & 3D Printing Carbon legislation Vehicle Emissions Technology Waste Autonomous Generation Vehicles ** Possible Question on whether agree with these challenges & opportunities / if anything missing?
Agenda Pack 34 of 353 9
LTP Objectives and Principles The objectives below outline transports role in delivering the Vision for Hertfordshire, mindful of the previously outlined transport challenges and opportunities. These will provide the framework for all transport service planning, delivery and management in future years. The objectives are presented under the following three themes:
Enabling enhanced levels of Prosperity Contributing to vibrant, attractive and sustainable Places Supporting People to live safe, healthy and fulfilling lives
1. Improve access to International Gateways and regional centres outside of Hertfordshire 2. Enhanced connectivity between Primary Urban Centres in Hertfordshire
3. Improve accessibility between employers and their labour markets 4. Enhance journey reliability and network
Prosperity resilience across Hertfordshire
5. Enhance the Quality and Vitality of Town Centres
6. Preserve the character and quality of the
Hertfordshire environment Place 7. Reduce Carbon Emissions
8. Making journeys and their impact safer and healthier
9. Improving access and enabling participation in everyday life through transport Agenda Pack 35 of 353 10
People
In addition to the themes and objectives, there are four principles which guide the strategy for delivering these objectives:
**Possible Question: Whether these objectives & principles are supported
The Proposed Strategy Much of what the council already does to maintain, enhance and support the operation of the transport system in the county is contributing to the transport objectives, and many of the policies in the existing LTP3 policy document will remain. However there are some areas of activity which can play a stronger role in future years. Without them the LTP Objectives and Vision are unlikely to be realised.
The new LTP key policy proposals and major schemes are set out in this section. They contribute strongly to the transport objectives and delivery of the vision. Combined they are a suggested strategic response to the challenges, opportunities and objectives identified. This public consultation seeks to ascertain whether this is the right approach for Hertfordshire and that it has local support.
Feedback from the Stage 2 Report suggested a blended approach comprising a mix of highway, public transport, walking and cycling improvements was optimum. This represents a pragmatic approach to the growth levels forecast, and the current travel patterns in the county. However, the transport strategy cannot be overly focussed on highways capacity improvements which will prove unsustainable in terms of financial cost and environmental impact, and will not sufficiently support the delivery of the Hertfordshire vision and objectives. Instead the strategy must comprise some carefully planned highway improvements to cater for forecast growth, alongside a series of other initiatives that will provide a platform for reduced levels of car use in future years.
Key Policy Proposals There are six key policy proposals which are the focus for this consultation. These would all represent a significant change in policy direction from the current LTP3 and therefore before being progressed further the county council wants the views of local stakeholders. They are listed below, along with their justification and potential implications.
KPP1 Adoption of a new ‘Transport User Hierarchy’ Justification Roads and urban areas have largely been designed to prioritise vehicle movement in the last 60 years. This has had implications for
Agenda Pack 36 of 353 11
the quality of urban places and marginalised provision for other modes of transport (walking, cycling, public transport) making them relatively less attractive than travel by car. A further implication is that this has encouraged high levels of car use, traffic and congestion. By changing the priority afforded to various modes in the design of urban areas and the transport system in future we can begin evolving travel in the county so it supports improved streets and places, travel by sustainable modes, reliable car journeys, reduced congestion and vehicle emissions. A potential future transport system of shared autonomous vehicles will require less space than currently allocated to cars in urban areas and this policy can support the transition to this.
Implications Mindful of the objectives of this LTP it is suggested the hierarchy would be as follows:
The hierarchy would apply to plans at a strategic level (i.e. this LTP), a local level (local area transport strategies) and scheme level by giving priority consideration to modes in a sequential order. It should also influence land use planning and urban design considerations. Before being applied the potential to reduce travel demand should be considered first, with the hierarchy then applying to the demand that remains from the various user groups.
Decisions, plans and strategies should be able to demonstrate how they have considered the needs of users groups in the hierarchy order. The needs and requirements of car users will still be a significant influence, but this should not supersede the needs of other users which should be considered first.
Economic considerations, the contribution of commuters to peak congestion and the inefficient use of space by long stay car parking are why car borne commuter needs should be considered behind the
Agenda Pack 37 of 353 12
needs of other vehicle users in the design process. This will not penalise commuters travelling by car, who should ultimately benefit from reduced congestion, more reliable journeys and a potentially wider choice of travel options.
**Possible Question: Whether this proposal is supported, and why if not?
KPP2 Delivering a step change in cycling in larger urban areas Justification Cycling levels in Hertfordshire are very low even for short trips. With over half of trips by all modes in the county less than 5 miles in length, there is great potential to increase levels of cycling. Improved conditions for cyclists, often contribute to better walking environments too, and together these modes can increase rates of physical activity, and support improved health and reduce health inequalities. By making cycling a natural and attractive travel choice, broadening the range of people who cycle and overall increasing cycling rates levels of car use, traffic growth and congestion can be reduced. This will benefit other road users, improve air quality, reduce carbon emissions and enhance the urban environment. There is evidence to suggest economic benefit from greater rates of cycling in urban areas, and by facilitating it as a mode for longer distance trips it can contribute to enhancing local access to key services. The Government in their draft Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy aims to make cycling safer and double cycling activity by 2025. Implications A focus on intra-urban trips in larger urban areas offers the greatest potential to significantly increase cycling levels, although where opportunities arise inter-urban cycling links could also be enhanced. Creating safer and more attractive cycling environments in urban areas may require some difficult choices with regards to the reallocation of highway space away from general traffic to cyclists. Good practice and guidance suggests a broader range of the local population will only see cycling as a natural choice if they are segregated from high levels of faster moving through traffic.
A significant increase in current local funding levels for cycling will be required. Supportive car parking policies and cycling promotion and marketing activity will be required to encourage greater use of the enhanced cycling infrastructure provided.
KPP3 Greater facilitation and support for shared mobility (car clubs, lift share, bike share) Justification Facilitated by technology a ‘sharing economy’ has grown in the last decade, which is leading to a shift away from a propensity for vehicle ownership, and shared mobility expected to form an increased role in the transport system over the coming decades. Offering threats and opportunities local transport strategies must recognise and take
Agenda Pack 38 of 353 13
advantage of this. Shared mobility measures such as car clubs, bike share, car pooling and lift sharing can reduce congestion, benefit the environment, and enhance access to services. There is limited existing provision locally, and therefore significant scope for mobility sharing to play a greater role. Implications Whilst largely private sector led, the council should develop a mobility sharing strategy to understand the potential locally and do more to support its realisation. District and borough land use planning policies can support things like car club provision in new developments. Support could be in the form of infrastructure (car club parking spaces and bike share stations) or through other means such as promotion, marketing, travel planning and engagement with local employers
**Possible Question: Whether this proposal is supported, and why if not?
KPP4 Enhanced public transport connectivity between towns, through supportive infrastructure Justification Levels of public transport use in Hertfordshire, other than for train trips into central London, are very low with this a factor in high levels of local traffic, congestion and pollution. There are a number of reasons for this including slow, indirect public transport journeys. Long term a bus rapid transit scheme (see major scheme section) could play a role, however in the short to medium term the focus should be on providing buses with a greater level of priority, with little current provision for this. This can reduce the journey time variation between car and public transport making travel by public transport more attractive, alongside other service improvements brought forward through the council’s partnership working with bus operators. Without this, worsening road congestion forecast will reduce the attraction of bus travel locally, further undermining viability and service levels. . Implications A priority bus network will be defined (see Fig XX), which will be a focus of bus priority measures (bus lanes, priority at signals, bus only access). The priority network and measures required will be developed in partnership with bus operators. Reallocation of road space away from general traffic and land take may be required to provide the necessary bus priority.
The possible priority bus network shown in Fig XX is subject to further investigation and refinement after discussions with operators and network managers, as well as during the development of local transport strategies (see Growth and Transport plans on page XX).
Agenda Pack 39 of 353 14
Fig XX: Possible Priority Bus Network
**Possible Question: Whether this proposal is supported, and why if not?
Agenda Pack 40 of 353 15
KPP5 Priority Traffic Management Network Justification Travel demand and hence traffic growth and congestion are forecast to grow in the next 15 years. This is fuelled by population growth. The greatest pressure will be felt on the motorway network, and strategic A- roads in the county. Worsening congestion will result in longer and more unreliable journey times. Pressure on the motorway and A-road network will worsen the impact when unplanned events causes traffic to divert onto alternative local routes. Overall the network will become less resilient and reliable, damaging the local economy and reducing quality of life. We cannot build our way out of trouble by responding to increased highway demand with widespread increases in highway capacity in the form of new road, enlarged roads or upgraded junctions. This would be unaffordable, very environmentally damaging and not support delivery of most of the LTP objectives. Such an approach would also only perpetuate further traffic growth and create congestion elsewhere. The potential of autonomous vehicles means future highway demands are uncertain beyond the next 15-20 years. It is prudent to prepare some highway upgrades to serve and mitigate the impact of new development in congested areas. However it is also sensible to make best use of the network already in place, and utilise technology and the investments already made by the county council in its traffic management capabilities.
Implications This policy approach would focus Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) solutions away from urban areas and onto key interurban routes, which are under the greatest pressure. A priority network of interurban roads (see map below for an indicative version) will be defined that will be the focus for future investment in traffic management capabilities (traffic signals, traffic monitoring equipment, variable message signs etc). The overarching aim will be to make journeys by road more reliable, and the network more resilient when unplanned events or incidents occur. The council will work jointly with partner authorities, including Highways England, who are in charge of the motorway and trunk road network.
A possible priority road network is shown in Fig XX. It is an assimilation of the county’s Primary Route Network, representing links of key strategic and economic importance, and Highways England network diversion routes. It will be subject to further consideration as part of the LTP Intelligent Transport Systems Strategy. (note that the majority of the routes are county council controlled (the exceptions being the A405 between M25 Junction 21a and M1Junction 6, and the A414T between Watling Street and the M1), and include some that are in close proximity/parallel to Highways England roads such as the A1m which can give the misleading impression that additional Highways England roads are part of this network when they are not.)
Agenda Pack 41 of 353 16
Fig XX: Possible Priority Traffic Management Network **Possible Question: Whether this proposal is supported, and why if not?
KPP6 Growth and Transport Plans Justification Growth and Transport Plans will identify how the LTP Objectives can be delivered at a local level, following analysis of local evidence, and
Agenda Pack 42 of 353 17
aligning this with policies and growth proposals in Local and neighbourhood plans. They are distinct from the Urban Transport Plans (UTPs) that accompanied the last LTP, because they are not restricted to single towns, and cover a larger area of groups of towns and transport corridors between them. This is in recognition of the county’s polycentric settlement pattern, and interaction (such as with commuting patterns) between neighbouring towns. The plans will have a more comprehensive evidence base than previous UTPs, and potentially identify more significant transport schemes and interventions. In being more informed by local growth proposals the plans will better understand local funding availability and be more deliverable. Implications The plans will be daughter documents of LTP4. There will be a programme for their development which will be informed by local housing growth levels and timescales. The plan for South West Hertfordshire is expected to be delivered first. Other areas of the county will be covered in future years by their own plan, although some areas with lower levels of growth will continue to be covered by UTPs. Following compilation of their evidence base, the strategy will be developed and schemes identified. The plan will then be consulted on prior to its adoption. The plans and their supporting evidence will aim to be as engaging and accessible as possible to encourage input from local communities. Once adopted the schemes identified can be considered alongside others such as those detailed in this strategy for inclusion in future LTP Implementation Plans.
Alongside the Growth and Transport Plans being developed there are a number of studies being delivered that are analysing local evidence and growth proposals to identify transport improvements required to bring forward new housing and employment, as well as regeneration. As with the Growth and Transport Plans these studies may recommend additional major schemes, as well as packages of smaller schemes. Stevenage town centre and the A10 through Broxbourne are the subject of two such studies.
Major Schemes **THIS SECTION ON MAJOR SCHEMES WILL BE UPDATED WITH ADDITIONAL DETAIL ON THE SCHEMES AND THEIR BENEFITS FOLLOWING THEIR TESTING IN THE COMET MODEL. ** The major scheme proposals have been derived from an appraisal of a large number of potential strategic interventions, followed by the identification of preferred package of schemes to be implemented over various timescales. They all score well against the stated themes, objectives and principles and therefore make a significant contribution to achievement of the LTP vision. Importantly they are also deemed deliverable (in some cases entirely by developer funding, in others via a mix of public and private funding) and provide value for money. They will not be sufficient on their own and other schemes and interventions will be identified during work on the LTP
Agenda Pack 43 of 353 18
daughter documents and as part of other studies. The major schemes have been tested in the COMET transport model to verify their impact and value.
Scheme Name: A414 BRT Expressway Scheme Description: East-west Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridors along the A414 between Hemel Hempstead and Hertford, and north-south BRT corridor on the A405 between Watford and St Albans. Benefits: In addition to increasing the use of Public Transport across the County and enhancing access to services, fewer cars on the roads will reduce congestion in the peak hours and improve reliability. Reduced traffic and congestion will also reduce carbon emissions. Greatly enhanced connectivity between towns will benefit the local economy. Timescale: Long term (post 2031)
Scheme Name: Sustainable Travel Town(s) Scheme Description: For Hemel Hempstead, Watford, Stevenage and St Albans. A package of measures to include intensification of travel planning activities (workplace travel planning and school travel planning), personalised travel planning for residents, and delivery of upgraded public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure within the towns. Delivery of infrastructure could mean a reduction of highway capacity within the town centres. At Stevenage this would be delivered in conjunction with the town centre and rail station redevelopment proposals. Benefits: To reduce severance and enhance connectivity for key movements between residential and employment/retail/leisure in large towns. Encourage a significant mode shift to sustainable modes. Increase active travel and improve health, improve air quality, improve local environment, reduce carbon emissions. Reduce congestion. Timescale: Short term/Medium term (by 2031)
Scheme Name: Maylands Access Improvements Scheme Description: Junction upgrades to provide enhanced access by all modes to the Maylands employment zone east of Hemel Hempstead. Benefits: To relieve congestion in the east of Hemel Hempstead provide additional capacity to enable growth in Maylands.
Agenda Pack 44 of 353 19
Reduced congestion and improved journey time reliability on the A414 Timescale: Short/Medium term (by 2031)
Scheme Name: A414 Highway Improvements Scheme Description: Junction upgrades at pinch-point junctions along the A414, including A1(M) junctions 3 and 4, A405 Park Street, A1081London Colney. Benefits: To address issues with congestion at specific junctions along the A414, to provide additional capacity and improve journey time reliability. Timescale: Medium term (by 2031)
Scheme Name: A414 Hertford – Road Bypass or Sustainable Travel Town options Scheme Description: Removal of through traffic in Hertford via a bypass scheme from the A414 west of Hertford to the A10 east of the town. Alternatively, or in conjunction with a bypass, an increase in access to the town by public transport and enhanced walking and cycling provision within both Hertford and Ware. Would require supportive parking policies to encourage reduced car use, potentially including some form of park and ride provision. Benefits: Bypass would reduce traffic levels and congestion in Hertford, and deliver more reliable journeys on the A414. Could enable public realm and other sustainable transport improvements in the town. Sustainable Travel Package would increase active travel and accessibility, as well as reducing traffic levels and congestion. Both schemes could improve air quality. Timescale: Bypass Long term (post 2031), Sustainable Package short/medium term (by 2031).
**Possible Question: Whether the major schemes are supported, and why if not?
Agenda Pack 45 of 353 20
Major Schemes (MS) and Key Policy Proposals (KPP) contribution to the Objectives
MS or KPP Objective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 KPP1 – Adoption of a Transport User Hierarchy KPP2 – Step change in cycling in our larger urban areas KPP3 – Shared Mobility KPP4 – Enhanced Public Transport connectivity between towns through supportive infrastructure KPP5 - Priority Traffic Management Network KPP6 – Growth & Transport Plans MS1 - Sustainable Travel Towns MS2 - Maylands Access MS3 - A414 Upgrade MS4 - Hertford Bypass/ Sustainable Options MS5 - East West Bus Rapid Transit Scheme
Funding the delivery of the Strategy
Agenda Pack 46 of 353 21
Development Contributions & Road User Charging
Public sector funding reductions since 2009 present a challenge for the delivery of the LTP strategy outlined. Traffic management technology, cycling and bus priority infrastructure will require sizeable investment. In addition, evidence suggests the most successful sustainable transport strategies include investment in promotions, marketing and behaviour change initiatives alongside infrastructure investment. Funding for these activities is particularly limited. This funding would also support some of the mobility sharing elements of this strategy, as well as travel planning and road safety activity.
To realise the LTP Vision, Objectives and Strategy new funding sources are needed. Funding from new developments has a role to play, but is unlikely to be sufficient on its own. There is scope to secure greater levels of funding from developments via a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) but the potential for this is currently unclear and will require district/borough council support to implement.
An alternative option that requires consideration is some form of charge on car users, particularly those that contribute to congestion at peak times. This would also serve to encourage travel behaviour change and manage demand for limited road space. Under the options permitted under legislation, some form of workplace parking levy would be the most efficient and effective to implement in the medium term.
An optimum approach to tackling the traffic and congestion growth faced by the county would be a nationally applied road user charging scheme. Current car taxes could be replaced by a variable charge to apply greater costs to drivers using the most congested parts of the network at the busiest times. This would make the best use of the existing network, allowing it to operate much more efficiently. Such variable charges already operate on existing transport networks such as rail. The scheme could operate using Automatic Number Plate Recognition Cameras, or more likely utilise satellite and Global Positioning Technology. Implementation of such a scheme requires policy change at a national level with little prospect of this currently. A local scheme is unlikely to be feasible due to the infrastructure required, and the costs associated with this and in the administration of the scheme.
Workplace Parking Levy
A more feasible and cost effective alternative option is a Workplace Parking Levy (WPL) scheme. This would entail an annual charge being applied to local employers providing staff parking over a certain threshold. The money raised would be spent on local transport improvements, to support greater use of walking, cycling and public transport in the towns the charge was applied.
Agenda Pack 47 of 353 22
WPL would present a number of advantages, particularly since it targets commuters who tend to travel at peak times and hence contribute significantly to local congestion. A WPL offers the following benefits:
1. Commuters are prompted to reconsider their travel behaviour, and supported to adopt healthier and more sustainable travel options 2. Funding generated solely for investment on local transport improvements, benefitting car and non-car users. 3. Businesses are incentivised to work with the council to do more to tackle negative transport impacts such as congestion and support sustainable transport initiatives. 4. The new income stream could be borrowed against to bring forward large transport capital projects, and improve major scheme business cases by increasing the level of local contribution. The delivery of some major schemes could depend on this.
The greatest beneficiaries of the policy are likely to be car users, given they will benefit from reduced congestion, more reliable journeys, and improved travel options.
WPL can be tailored to a local area and would logically be applied to larger urban areas and adjoining employment sites, where alternative travel options could be enhanced. Various exclusions could be incorporated into the policy, so that certain user groups, business type and size would not pay. The annual charge per parking space would be paid by businesses to the county council, with the charge passed onto the business’s staff however they deemed appropriate. Parking controls around towns and sites subject to WPL would be essential to ensure parking demand is not displaced to on-street. The policy would take a number of years to investigate, approve and then implement, with the details subject to further future consultation. A WPL scheme already operates successfully in Nottingham where it has helped transform travel options by funding the expansion of the city’s tram system, and is being considered by a number of other local authorities in England.
Possible Question: Do you agree that the county council should investigate how a Workplace Parking Levy could be applied to Hertfordshire, as a means to delivering the LTP Strategy?
Next steps & how to take part Consultation timescales and details on how to respond.
Agenda Pack 48 of 353 23
Agenda Item No HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING AND TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL 5
THURSDAY, 30 JUNE 2016 AT 10.00 AM
RAIL STRATEGY
Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment
Author: Trevor Mason (Tel: 01992 556117)
Executive Member: Derrick Ashley, Executive Member for Environment, Planning & Transport
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To seek the Panel’s endorsement of an interim Rail Strategy.
2. Summary
2.1 The Rail Strategy sets out the County Council’s aspirations for improvements to the rail network.
2.2 A new interim Rail Strategy has been developed to support the County Council’s responses to the current round of Department for Transport and Network Rail consultations.
2.3 The strategy has been developed through stakeholder engagement workshops and full public consultation.
2.4 This interim strategy will be reviewed once additional work, including the Transport Vision and station audit, has been completed.
3. Recommendation
3.1 That the Panel: a. Endorses the draft Rail Strategy as set out in Appendix 2 to the report; b. Recommends to Cabinet that Cabinet approves the draft Rail Strategy as set out in Appendix 2 to the report at its meeting on 11 July 2016.
4. Background
4.1 The Rail Strategy forms the basis of Hertfordshire County Council’s responses to rail industry consultations and for pro-active lobbying. The current Rail
Agenda Pack 49 of 353 1
Strategy was published in April 2011 as part of the Local Transport Plan. Since then there has been a national shift to a more active development of the rail network, with major new infrastructure such as High Speed 2 and Crossrail 2 being developed, and other projects such as Crossrail 1 and the Thameslink Programme approaching completion.
5. Consultation
5.1 The draft strategy has been developed through a series of stakeholder engagement exercises, followed by full public consultation in Summer 2015.
5.2 There were a total of 455 responses to the consultation, of which 55 were from organisations and 400 from individuals. A table summarising all of the individual responses made and how these have been reflected in the revised draft strategy is included as Appendix 1 detailed at this link – Environment, Planning & Transport Cabinet Panel - 30 June 2016 -Item 5 - Appendix 1 - Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation A hard copy of this appendix is available for Members in the Members’ Lounge; a copy will also be available at the meeting for Members to refer to if they wish. If any Member wishes to receive a hard copy, please contact Theresa Baker on telephone number 01992 556545 or by email to [email protected].
6. Additional Technical Work
6.1 The consultation raised a number of issues which required further input from consultants Arup. In addition, further work has been undertaken to inform the County Council’s position on Crossrail 2. The outcome of this work has been incorporated in the revised draft strategy.
7. Changes to the Draft Strategy
7.1 The consultation responses gave overall support for most of the proposals set out in the draft strategy. There were, however, a number of proposals which were not fully supported, and some additional or alternative proposals.
7.2 The responses have also helped to clarify the County Council’s position on issues where there were a number of alternative approaches.
7.3 The key changes / clarification of position arising from the consultation are set out in Table 1:
Agenda Pack 50 of 353 2
Table1: Key changes / clarification of position arising from the consultation
Issue Arising Change to Draft Rail Strategy
Alternative terminus for Crossrail2 (currently None. Further technical work has confirmed assumed to be Broxbourne). that the terminus at Broxbourne provides the best solution for Hertfordshire.
Mixed views on role of Stevenage as a long- No change i.e. continue to support (and seek distance or regional stopping point. improvements to) Stevenage as an InterCity stop.
New Stevenage southern suburban station Supported in principle as this will not on Hertford loop. significantly impact on existing train services.
Mixed comments on introducing intercity Amended wording to referring to enabling stops at St Albans intercity stops at times of disruption and maximising connectivity at Luton.
Mixed views on Crossrail 1 link to Tring Amended wording to support Crossrail WCML link but with no specified terminus.
Bus Rapid Transit and light rail not favoured Removed as formal proposal, but retained for Abbey Line wording allowing for alternative technologies to heavy rail if opportunities arose to improve the service.
Hemel Hempstead station needs to be Added to strategy. redeveloped / relocated.
Calls for through running of Abbey Line Included as longer-term aspiration to be trains to Euston. considered post HS2.
Mixed views on Watford to Aylesbury Retained but text amended to set out need services. for a future strategic review of potential new services
Orbital rail route from Watford to Heathrow. Not included as Crossrail link to WCML would provide connectivity required
Reintroduction of line from Stansted to Not included as outside the county, and Braintree because journey opportunities and Essex CC’s aspirations are unclear.
Implications of Radlett rail freight terminal Amended wording to include the status of the terminal and need to ensure that impacts on passenger services are considered if progressed as a scheme.
Accuracy of housing & employment figures. To be updated with latest figures from
Agenda Pack 51 of 353 3
districts prior to publication and with any subsequent changes to the Strategy.
Station facility detail. Full review of facilities at all stations to be included in Final Rail Strategy.
Various ticketing/fares related issues. Summary position added, including on smart ticketing, ticket interoperability, etc.
Reliability of services. Included as general aim.
Level crossing closures. Text included on how these should be managed in conjunction with HCC.
More not all long distance services to stop at Amended text. Watford Junction.
7.4 The resulting draft Rail Strategy is attached as Appendix 2 to the report.
8. Further Changes
8.1 The final Rail Strategy will need to include any changes to rail infrastructure that may be developed through the current Transport Vision / Local Transport Plan process.
8.2 In addition, as noted in Section 7, the full audit of facilities at all 50 stations in Hertfordshire needs to be reviewed.
8.3 Therefore it is proposed that a final Rail Strategy is adopted in 2017 once all of these changes have been made.
9. Next Steps
9.1 Following comments from the Panel, the draft Interim Rail Strategy will be presented to Cabinet on 11 July 2016
10. Financial Implications
10.1 The Rail Strategy sets out proposals which the County Council will lobby the rail industry to deliver, and therefore there is no direct financial implication for the County Council.
10.2 The delivery of some proposals may require a financial contribution from the County Council and / or other third parties however, the requirement for such funding cannot be predicted. Therefore any future financial County Council contributions sought will be reported to Members for consideration as they arise.
Agenda Pack 52 of 353 4
11. Equalities Implications
11.1 When considering proposals placed before Members it is important that they are fully aware of, and have themselves rigorously considered the equalities implications of the decision that they are taking.
11.2 Rigorous consideration will ensure that proper appreciation of any potential impact of that decision on the County Council’s statutory obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty. As a minimum this requires decision makers to read and carefully consider the content of any Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) produced by officers.
11.3 The Equality Act 2010 requires the Council when exercising its functions to have due regard to the need to (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other conduct prohibited under the Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 are age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation.
11.4 An Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) has been undertaken and this is annexed at Appendix A to the report.
Background Information
Local Transport Plan 2011-2031
Agenda Pack 53 of 353 5
Agenda Pack 54 of 353 6
Appendix A Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
Guidance is available on Compass. Completion of an EqIA should be proportional and relevant to the anticipated impact of the project on equalities. The form can be tailored to your project and should be completed before decisions are made. Key EqIAs should be reviewed by the Business Manager or Service Head, signed off by your department’s Equality Action Group (EAG) and sent to the Equality and Diversity team to publish on HertsDirect. For support and advice please contact [email protected].
STEP 1: Responsibility and involvement
Title of proposal/ Hertfordshire Head of Service or Jon Tiley project/strategy/ County Council Business Manager procurement/policy Rail Strategy Names of those Judy Cameron- Lead officer Trevor Mason involved in Rollo contact details: completing the EqIA: Date completed: 1 April 2015 and Review date: April 2017 then reviewed 21.6.16
STEP 2: Objectives of proposal and scope of assessment – what do you want to achieve?
Proposal objectives: The rail network across the country is and will be what you want to achieve undergoing significant change over the next 30 years. intended outcomes Hertfordshire itself will see a number of franchise renewals purpose and need as well as the potential for several substantial new schemes, including HS2, Crossrail 2 and an east west link between Bedford and Cambridge.
Particular emphasis has been given by the rail industry as to how such changes can help support economic growth and sustainable development. Schemes that achieve the highest impact on these will be prioritised.
The current 2011 Rail Strategy has proved fit for purpose as a shorter term strategy for making best use of existing infrastructure. However in order to maximise the County Council’s influence on this, as well as future development of the network, a prioritised evidence-based strategy that fits with rail industry processes and funding mechanisms is required.
The new Rail Strategy, and the evidence it is based on, will help inform the emerging transport vision work so that rail is fully integrated into the county’s longer term transport and spatial planning objectives.
The Rail Strategy will consider shorter distance travel within and to/from the county, making up the majority of current journeys, as well as longer distance regional and national
TemplateAgenda updated Pack February 55 of 2014 353 Please email completed EqIAs to [email protected] Page 1 of 10 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
journeys.
It will recommend a large number of short, medium and long term interventions in the rail network in Hertfordshire, to meet its overarching development objectives (to support economic growth, population growth and competitiveness, and address sustainability).
More generally it will aim to: Improve connectivity to a wider range of destinations, either with direct trains or with minimal changes Improve service frequency and journey times Reduce overcrowding on trains/stations by addressing capacity needed now and in the future Improve access to stations for all Ensure that rolling stock meets the needs of all customers Improve access to key employment centres and hospitals
Before the Rail Strategy is adopted it will be subject to a period of public consultation to ensure that the views of relevant stakeholders are taken into consideration. Stakeholders: Hertfordshire residents who: Who will be affected: Work/travel within the county the public, partners, staff, Work/travel out of the county to neighbouring areas service users, local Member etc and London Work/travel regionally and nationally
Partnership bodies: Hertfordshire district/borough councils Neighbouring local authorities Train operators Network Rail TfL Rail consortia Bus operators Airports Sustrans CTC University of Hertfordshire Hertfordshire LEP, neighbouring LEPs Hertfordshire Chamber of Commerce
HCC: Hertfordshire County Council – TAS, SLUP, Highways Executive & local members, Group spokes
TemplateAgenda updated Pack February 56 of 2014 353 Please email completed EqIAs to [email protected] Page 2 of 10 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
Other: DfT HS2 Ltd Rail user groups London Travelwatch Passenger Focus Hertfordshire Action on Disability Other relevant ‘protected characteristic’ groups
The project could have impacts on the following ‘protected characteristics’ groups: Age (older people) Disability (including learning disability) Pregnancy and maternity (including parents with children) Carers (by association with any of the above) Race Religion or belief Gender re-assignment Sex Sexual orientation
STEP 3: Available data and monitoring information
Relevant equality information What the data tell us about equalities For example: Community profiles / service user demographics, data and monitoring information (local and national), similar or previous EqIAs, complaints, audits or inspections, local knowledge and consultations. This assessment has the following information for its analysis:
National Rail enquiries web site Of the 20 busiest stations in the county 85% have some disabled access, of which half have full disabled access. Watford High Street and Bushey stations have no disabled access. Access includes level platform access and DDA compliant toilets Only 4 of the 20 busiest stations have 24 hour staffing and most of the others do not have staff from mid- evening onwards 8 out of the 17 rolling stock types used in the county do not have disabled toilet facilities 5 out of the 17 rolling stock types do not have offer visual information to
TemplateAgenda updated Pack February 57 of 2014 353 Please email completed EqIAs to [email protected] Page 3 of 10 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
assist passengers 9 out of the 17 rolling stock types do not have staff to assist passengers
DfT Heavy rail fleets: 2020 Comprehensive assessment of all targetted compliance (cf passenger rolling stock utilised in the Regulation 45 of the Railways county, highlighting what needs to be (Interoperability) Regulations addressed by 2020 to be compliant 2011- which will make it unlawful with the regulations, including to use a passenger rail vehicle auditory and visual warnings/aids, after 31 Dec 2019 that does not the number of wheelchair spaces comply with the technical required, operability of door controls, specification for interoperability – etc. persons with reduced mobility, unless a special dispensation is granted)
Passenger Focus: The experiences of disabled rail 5% of rail users have a travellers – NRPS 2013 disability/long-term illness 26% of those are over 65 17% of those with visual impairment also have hearing impairment 41% have mobility issues, 22% hearing impairment, 15% sight impairment, 8% learning disabilities, 2% speech impairment, 2% wheelchair Most travel between 10-3pm, are likely to be travelling with luggage and additional items and with a companion 57% travel for leisure but 32% travel to commute Those with a visual impairment were least satisfied with stations/trains
Station facilities with least
satisfaction include information on
train times and platforms (77%),
personal security (64%) and shelter
facilities (62%)
More likely to ask for help than non-
disabled
Train satisfaction generally higher but not for ease of getting on & off the train and personal security
Previous transport policy Previous consultations have revealed that transport disadvantaged groups TemplateAgenda updated Pack February 58 of 2014 353 Please email completed EqIAs to [email protected] Page 4 of 10 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
consultations with equalities include older people and those with groups and previous EqIA’s for disabilities (including learning LTP3 and LTP daughter disabilities). documents (for example bus strategy). This documentation is available in the Highways and Waste Panel evidence on Hertsdirect.org.uk.
Equality and Human Rights Examples of disability-related Commission: ‘Hidden in plain harassment on public transport: sight’ disabled people are more likely to be victims of crime than people who are not disabled; fear of crime and its impact are greater for disabled people; harassment takes place in many different settings, including on public transport and in public places
Equality and Human Rights In 2010, 47,229 hate crimes were Commission : Equality groups’ reported to the police, and 11% of perception and experience of lesbian, gay, bisexual people who crime, 2010 reported crime had experienced threat of violence, compared to 4% of heterosexual people Analysis of British Crime Survey data from 2007-2010 shows that victims believed that incidents were racially motivated in 15 per cent of incidents reported by Asian / Asian British people and 10 per cent of incidents reported by Black / Black British people; or motivated by homophobia in 12 per cent of the incidents reported by lesbian, gay or bisexual people
ACPO hate crime data 2010 For Hertfordshire for 2010, 1208 hate crimes in total, made up of 1031- race, 77 - sexual orientation, faith - 36, anti-semitic - 29, disability - 24, transgender - 11
STEP 4: Impact Assessment – Service Users, communities and partners (where relevant)
Guidance on groups of service users to consider within each protected group can be found here
TemplateAgenda updated Pack February 59 of 2014 353 Please email completed EqIAs to [email protected] Page 5 of 10 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
Making stations and rolling stock more accessible are mitigations relevant to several of the protected characteristic categories below. Examples could include, but are not limited to: Clear signage and high quality information that is appropriately sited and displayed Well-lit facilities with CCTV Ticket vending machines that are easy to use by all Level access to platforms Disabled toilet provision Help points/panic buttons Good shelter facilities Audio announcements as well as visual displays Staff availability Adequate luggage space provided near train doors Easy to operate door controls
It should be noted that whilst HCC will be responsible for the implementation of station forecourt schemes it will not be responsible for most of the cited mitigations in this EqIA. It is intended that the new Rail Strategy will serve to influence the rail industry to realise the desired improvements.
Potential for differential Protected What reasonable mitigations can impact (positive or characteristic you propose? negative) Age Hertfordshire has a growing Making stations and rolling population of older people stock more accessible, both and so improvements to rail in terms of facilitating provision that could improve movement and also by travel by this mode would providing information in a be positive and potentially suitable format, and encourage more people in improving staffing levels. this category to travel by Simplification of journeys rail. with more direct connectivity, increased frequencies and quicker journeys Wider range of destinations directly served Disability As for older people, people Making stations and rolling (including with a disability would stock more accessible, both Learning benefit from accessibility in terms of facilitating Disability) and information provision movement and also by improvements. providing information in a suitable format, and improving staffing levels. Simplification of journeys with more direct connectivity, increased frequencies and quicker journeys Wider range of destinations directly served TemplateAgenda updated Pack February 60 of 2014 353 Please email completed EqIAs to [email protected] Page 6 of 10 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
Potential for differential Protected What reasonable mitigations can impact (positive or characteristic you propose? negative)
People with disabilities may Stations – improved lighting, be more at risk, or have an CCTV, staffing, help points increased perception of risk, Trains – improved lighting, of hate crimes. staffing, CCTV, panic Improvements to rolling buttons, clear sight lines stock and to stations would help address this and so would be a positive impact. Race People of certain races may Stations – improved lighting, be more at risk, or have an CCTV, staffing, help points increased perception of risk, Trains – improved lighting, of hate crimes. staffing, CCTV, panic Improvements to rolling buttons, clear sight lines stock and to stations would Signage/information/ticket help address this and so machines – to cater for all would be a positive impact. sectors of the community People with English as a second language may find signs and information provided difficult to understand. Gender re- People in the process of Stations – improved lighting, assignment gender re-assignment may CCTV, staffing, help points be more at risk, or have an Trains – improved lighting, increased perception of risk, staffing, CCTV, panic of hate crimes. buttons, clear sight lines Improvements to rolling Signage/information/ticket stock and to stations would machines – to cater for all help address this and so sectors of the community would be a positive impact. Pregnancy and Improving travelling by rail Making stations and rolling maternity would be positive if it stock more accessible, in assisted pregnant women in terms of facilitating accessing the rail network. movement Improving accessibility and Simplification of journeys simplifying journeys would with more direct connectivity, be particularly helpful. increased frequencies and quicker journeys Wider range of destinations directly served Religion or belief People of certain religions Stations – improved lighting, may be more at risk, or CCTV, staffing, help points have an increased Trains – improved lighting, perception of risk, of hate staffing, CCTV, panic crimes. Improvements to buttons, clear sight lines rolling stock and to stations
TemplateAgenda updated Pack February 61 of 2014 353 Please email completed EqIAs to [email protected] Page 7 of 10 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
Potential for differential Protected What reasonable mitigations can impact (positive or characteristic you propose? negative) would help address this and so would be a positive impact. Sex Women travelling alone Stations – improved lighting, may have an increased CCTV, staffing, help points perception of risk of attack. Trains – improved lighting, Improvements to rolling staffing, CCTV, panic stock and to stations would buttons, clear sight lines help address this and so would be a positive impact. Sexual orientation People of certain sexual Stations – improved lighting, orientations may be more at CCTV, staffing, help points risk, or have an increased Trains – improved lighting, perception of risk, of hate staffing, CCTV, panic crimes. Improvements to buttons, clear sight lines rolling stock and to stations would help address this and so would be a positive impact. Marriage & civil N/A N/A partnership Carers (by Carers for the elderly or Making stations and rolling association with someone with a physical or stock more accessible, both any of the above) learning disability would, as in terms of facilitating for older people and for movement and also by people with a disability, providing appropriate benefit from improved information, and improving accessibility and information staffing levels. provision. Simplification of journeys with more direct connectivity, increased frequencies and quicker journeys Wider range of destinations directly served Carers and From April 2015, carers will be entitled to an assessment of their CARE ACT 2014 own needs in the same way as those they care for. If the focus of your EqIA relates to care and support, consider carers’ new rights and see the Care Act pages on Compass for more guidance N/A N/A
Opportunity to advance equality of opportunity and/or foster good relations (Please refer to the guidance for more information on the public sector duties)
N/A
TemplateAgenda updated Pack February 62 of 2014 353 Please email completed EqIAs to [email protected] Page 8 of 10 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
STEP 5: Gaps identified
Gaps identified The draft Rail Strategy will be the subject of a period of public Do you need to collect consultation. Measures will be taken to ensure that relevant more data/information or groups are aware of the consultation and that it is available in carry out consultation? (A ‘How to engage’ appropriate formats. Going forward relevant groups will also be consultation guide is on included in stakeholder consultations on any station access Compass). How will you improvements to be undertaken by the County Council. make sure your consultation is accessible to those affected?
STEP 6: Other impacts
Consider if your proposal has the potential (positive and negative) to impact on areas such as health and wellbeing, crime and disorder and community relations. There is more information in the guidance.
The Rail Strategy includes options for improving the station and train environment, including addressing safety and security issues. It is intended that these will have a positive effect on crime and disorder in these areas, and also on community relations, with local communities being involved in the improvement of stations.
STEP 7: Conclusion of your analysis
Select one conclusion of your analysis Give details No equality impacts identified Implementation of the HCC Rail Strategy x No change required to proposal. is expected to deliver positive impacts for identified ‘protective characteristic’ groups. No negative impacts have been identified. Minimal equality impacts identified Adverse impacts have been identified, but have been objectively justified (provided you do not unlawfully discriminate). Ensure decision makers consider the cumulative effect of how a number of decisions impact on equality. Potential equality impacts identified Take ‘mitigating action’ to remove barriers or better advance equality. Complete the action plan in the next section.
TemplateAgenda updated Pack February 63 of 2014 353 Please email completed EqIAs to [email protected] Page 9 of 10 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)
Select one conclusion of your analysis Give details Major equality impacts identified Stop and remove the policy The adverse effects are not justified, cannot be mitigated or show unlawful discrimination. Ensure decision makers understand the equality impact.
STEP 8: Action plan
Issue or opportunity identified relating to: Officer Responsible Mitigation measures Action proposed Further research and target Consultation proposal date Monitor and review Public consultation on draft Ensure that representatives of all Liz Drake HCC Rail strategy relevant ‘protected interest’ groups are aware of the consultation and that it is available in appropriate formats. Future HCC led station Ensure that representatives of all Rupert improvement schemes relevant ‘protected interest’ groups are Thacker included in the development of any relevant schemes.
This EqIA has been reviewed and signed off by:
Head of Service or Business Manager: Date:
Equality Action Group Chair: Date:
HCC’s Diversity Board requires the Equality team to compile a central list of EqIAs so a random sample can be quality assured. Each Equality Action Group is encouraged to keep a forward plan of key service decisions that may require an EqIA, but please can you ensure the Equality team is made aware of any EqIAs completed so we can add them to our list. (email: [email protected]).
TemplateAgenda updated Pack February 64 of 2014 353 Please email completed EqIAs to [email protected] Page 10 of 10
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Appendix1 West Anglia Mainline
Organisation Consultation Comments - WAML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Broxbourne 4-tracking & CR2 to be given higher profile - Include CR2 on page 14 but Borough Council e.g. on pages 4 & 32 & in figure 2.2 on page not on pages 4 & 32 as 14. Include Ambition Broxbourne's aspiration these figures list existing of Cheshunt as strategic hub with CR2, links services and lines. Include to Stratford, London & Stansted, and reference to Ambition significant development around the station Broxbourne's aspiration of associated with a potential redevelopment of Cheshunt as strategic hub, Delamare Road. Include lobbying for early and of lobbying for early safeguarding of regional CR2 route. CR2 safeguarding of regional route. Cambridgeshire Include addressing single track tunnel at Single track tunnel at None. County Council Stansted to improve journey times & capacity Stansted as constraint for all services, from the north & south. already included in Strategy. East Herts District Objects to wording on page 41 re - HCC not pursuing Hertford Council investigation into the implementation of East as CR2 terminus and development around Hertford East branch so text will be removed. stations. Serious constraints of implementing Amend text on page 40 re CR2 in East Herts should be recognised. Ware platform. There was never a second platform at Ware (page 40). Hertford Town Appropriate service mix with more semi-fasts - Include reference to semi- Council to London, and longer term to Liverpool St. fasts including to Liverpool St. Hertfordshire Lobby for Hertford East & Harlow as northern HCC not pursuing Hertford None. County Council - termini. East as CR2 terminus as Cllr Cowan services would likely worsen in terms of journey time.
Agenda PagePack 165 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - WAML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Hertfordshire LEP Early 4-tracking to Stansted in CP6 and 4-tracking included in the None. potentially CR2 longer term depending on Strategy already. capacity improvements from 4-tracking & timetable studies. Natural England Concern that 4-tracking for any distance may - Amend text to recognise be hard to achieve with significant potential impacts in pinchpoints, e.g. between Cheshunt & Hertfordshire as well as Bowyers Water which is a SSSI. benefits. Development would need to meet the Habitat Directive, provide adequate habitat compensation & requirements of the Lea Valley Park Authority. Radlett Society Improve connectivity to Stansted. - Cross-reference text in 'Access to international airports' section. Railfuture Improved connectivity for Hertfordshire at Whilst improved connectivity None. Stratford, through additional platform capacity to Stratford is highlighted in on High Meads Loop between Temple Mills the Strategy connectivity to East Jn and High Meads Jn for operational Stratford International resilience and new direct interchange at already exists via the DLR Stratford International with Southeastern and therefor an interchange Highspeed and DLR for services from/to with London Overground is Hertfordshire, and also dual use with London not seen as a priority. Overground as their platforms 1 and 2 cease to be sufficient for medium/long-term capacity/service frequency/train length. Stanstead Abbots Poor rolling stock, line capacity & Capacity/infrastructure are Add rolling stock as issue in Parish Council infrastructure. already captured under Hertford East branch issues & potential section. interventions.
Agenda PagePack 266 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - WAML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Stevenage Borough Propose Stevenage as northern CR2 HCC not pursuing None. Council terminus with new link between Hertford Stevenage as CR2 terminus stations to improve connectivity, including as journey times to London potentially to Stansted with new Hertford East would be significantly longer branch chord. than for existing services and take up capacity for those existing services. Aspiration of east west connectivity referred to Transport Vision. Transport for Enhancements to Lea Valley route should Noted but outside the scope None. London include higher service frequency within of the Strategy. London. Individual Small-scale changes over long period; Timetable studies are being None. timetable changes and platform lengthening considered in the current should be considered in this period. Crossrail period and platform 2 to Stansted. Stansted to Braintree lengthening in the next reinstatement. control period (3 years away). Lead in times for rail schemes are long. Crossrail 2 to Stansted is not being considered by HCC and rail industry as journey times would be too slow to make viable. Braintree route outside scope of Strategy but will refer to Essex. Individual 4-tracking Coppermill to Broxbourne Junc’s Already included. None. Individual Extend CR2 to Harlow. Improve services to HCC and rail industry not Enhance Stratford in Stratford. considering CR2 to Harlow Strategy. as journey times to London would be too long.
Agenda PagePack 367 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - WAML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual Line speed improvements north of Stansted HCC would support line Level crossing section to be to Cambridge; southern access improvements north of included in the Strategy. improvements to Stansted with potential Stansted if this did not affect tunnel doubling & passive provision for later services in the county but is Include reference to TfL reinstatement of Braintree route; level not a priority of the council. devolution of inners from crossing strategy to improve/remove; Doubling of tunnel included Cheshunt & aspiration to reinstatement of link between Hertford in the Strategy and HCC will improve frequency. stations and new Rye House chord to refer Braintree aspiration to facilitate connectivity from Hertford East Essex. Rye House chord Reference to extra platforms branch to Stansted. Improve frequency south already included and removed and Stratford as of Cheshunt to 4tph. Support for CR2 to relinking Hertford stations to alternative terminus Hertford East (4tph all day), to Harlow & be referred to The Transport clarified. Stansted (semi-fast) and some terminating at vision. Hertford East & Broxbourne (4tph) & 4-tracking to Broxbourne Stansted not being pursued Junction. Lengthen Liverpool Street platforms by HCC as CR2 termini. 4- but wait to CR2 timetable north of Cheshunt tracking already included in is confirmed before consider extra platforms, Strategy. with also the potential of Stratford as alternative terminus. Individual Old and unpleasant trains. Refer to Train facility None. section. Individual Train & platform lengthening at Liverpool St HCC has no view on costs Network Rail has a level very expensive. Remove level crossings. of schemes at Liverpool St. crossing removal programme and reference will be included in the Strategy for HCC's aspirations. Individual No Oyster machine at Kings Langley deters Refer to WCML. None. travel.
Agenda PagePack 468 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - WAML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual Extend CR2 to Stansted, not Hertford East. HCC and rail industry not None. Linking Hertford East & Stansted would mean considering CR2 to Hertford less services to London. Prioritise capacity at East or Stansted. Hertford Broxbourne Junction and south to Cheshunt, East & Stansted link to be not at Ware. considered with 4-tracking capacity. Individual Suggests various recommendations for HCC has no view on Text to be included re TfL infrastructure/capacity improvements south of infrastructure improvements devolved inners and Bethnal Green to maximise capacity for suggested- only that aspirations for improved WAML services at Liverpool St. Improve capacity be improved. frequency and lengthening Cheshunt frequency to mayoral minimum of operating hours. recommendation of 4tph, potentially with 4th platform. Earlier services from Cheshunt to London and later services from London to Cheshunt to connect with underground services. Individual Improve bus links between Hertford stations; Refer safeguarding to Include bus connectivity in safeguard land for reinstating rail link. Transport Vision. Station facility section. Improve bus connectivity between stations & town centres. Individual Improve station facilities particularly parking & Refer to Station facility None. toilets. survey. Individual 4-tracking WAML to improve access to 4-tracking already included. None. Stansted. Individual Improved connectivity for Hertfordshire at Whilst improved connectivity None. Stratford, through additional platform capacity to Stratford is highlighted in on High Meads Loop between Temple East the Strategy connectivity to Jn and High Meads Jn- for operational Stratford International resilience and new direct interchange at already exists via the DLR Stratford International with Southeastern and therefor an interchange Highspeed and DLR for services from/to with London Overground is Hertfordshire, and also dual use with London not seen as a priority. Agenda PagePack 569 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - WAML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Overground as their platforms 1 and 2 cease to be sufficient for medium /long-term capacity/service frequency/train length. Individual Improve frequency at Theobalds Grove to Refer to timetable study. None. more than 2tph. Individual 4-track Tottenham Hale to Cheshunt. Included in Strategy. None.
Individual Questions Hertford East as terminus of CR2 Hertford East & Stansted Amend text to emphasise and also against Stansted as terminus. not being pursued by HCC balance of fast, semi-fast & Stansted services should not be given priority as CR2 termini. Refer train slow services. over commuter trains. Clapped trains. concerns to train facility section. Individual Increase frequencies at Roydon, Refer frequency aspirations Enhance Stratford in Northumberland Park & Angel Road, & slow to timetable studies. Strategy. services at Tottenham Hale and Clapton. Hoddesdon served by Rye New station at Essex Road to serve House & Broxbourne Hoddesdon. Increase frequencies to Stratford stations. Stansted - & from Stansted to Cambridge. Cambridge services are not a priority for Hertfordshire. Individual Link Hertford stations for orbital connectivity. Refer to Transport Vision. None. Individual Link Hertford stations, to improve service Refer to Transport Vision. None. frequency on Hertford East line and enable east west movements. Individual Renationalisation of railways. HCC does not have a view None. on who manages the railways. Individual Faster service to Hertford East not stopping Refer to timetable study. None. at Hackney Downs, Edmonton Green, or Cheshunt as these stations are already well serviced by TFL . (Liverpool Street-Seven Sisters-Broxbourne-Rye House-St Margarets- Ware-Hertford East) Agenda PagePack 670 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - WAML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual Selected route should not include Tring but Response captured in None. continue to Leighton Buzzard. WCML corridor section. Individual Improving local connectivity to eastern - Include reference re wider destinations without going via Liverpool St, Broxbourne connectivity. e.g. at Broxbourne. Individual 4-tracking from Coppermill & Broxbourne 4-tracking included in None. Junctions. Basic interval service from Hertford Strategy. Strong local East. aspiration to improve service frequency from Hertford East which is disproportionately infrequent compared to other lines to address current and future patronage - no changes proposed. Individual HCC does not have control over commercial HCC does not have control None. decisions made by TOCs. over TOC decisions but it can influence.
Agenda PagePack 771 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation EAST COAST MAINLINE
Organisation Consultation Comments - ECML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Cambridgeshire Supports improved long distance services at Supports strategy proposals None. County Council Stevenage & any station enhancements that therefore no amendments will assist with this. Supports GN suburban needed. conditional outputs & proposals, particularly for Hitchin- Cambridge line. East Herts Council Include ' Short term: secure better long Agree. Amend Top priority table on distance connections from Stevenage to the page 83, Section 5.2 to better north from the new Intercity Trains franchise reflect Long distance and progress comprehensive development of connectivity priority. Stevenage Transport Hub to support Stevenage's increasing importance as a growing population and employment centre, and its enhanced role as an interchange hub' as a top priority in the table in section 5.2 on page 83. Hertford Town Improved long distance service frequency to Improved long distance Include reference to local Council north & east; more semi fast services connectivity to north/east & concerns about the generally to London and particularly on semi-fast service frequency termination of through running Hertford Loop calling at Hertford North, on Hertford Loop is already & emphasise the need for Enfield Chase, Palmers Green & Finsbury included in Strategy, strong lobbying on improved Park only, & continuing on to Stevenage & therefore no change onward connectivity. Cambridge from Hertford North. needed. More Hertford Loop services will serve Stevenage throughout the day with the new Stevenage turnback but no services will travel north of here.
Agenda PagePack 872 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - ECML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Hertfordshire Local Disagrees with developing Stevenage as Network Rail is no longer Include support for use of Enterprise interchange hub as a priority as a result of considering an East West HS2 released capacity for Partnership 'Stevenage Framework', particularly if East route via Hitchin. Because other stations on ECML in West Rail central section route passes of this and because overall analysis. through Hitchin (but agrees with improving Stevenage is key growth long distance service frequency at area it is to be retained as Stevenage). Stevenage could be developed proposed interchange hub. in medium term alongside a new station. Include improved car Additional parking or park & ride should be parking for Stevenage in considered if developed as hub. Released station facility survey. capacity with HS2 could create long distance service opportunities from other stations in Hertfordshire & improved frequency between Hertfordshire stations.
Agenda PagePack 973 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - ECML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Hitchin Rail Users Improvements to Hertford loop services Hitchin- Cambridge Amend Hertford loop priorities Group should be short term not medium term, interventions focus on the from medium to short- including reference to signalling Thameslink programme; medium. improvements & passing loops as well as additional intervention are new rolling stock. Should be passing loops & not included as main Turnback platforms are not turnbacks at Hertford North & Gordon Hill. intervention of Hitchin curve considered sufficient for Consider additional/restored station stops has already been delivered. Hertford Loop for service between Stevenage & Hertford North e.g. Sandy will be interchange improvements but text can be Harwood Park & Stapleford. Give more between ECML & East West amended to include reference emphasis to Hitchin's importance as junction Rail and so Hitchin's role as to whatever intervention will for ECML & Cambridge branch. Interventions a hub is less important. achieve aspiration. should be included for this branch. Hitchin & Source of Thameslink Stevenage should receive same GN (& post service frequencies was DfT Include text to recognise 2018 Thameslink) service pattern. Consider consultation. Hitchin importance of intermediate capacity for GN outers as well as inners - will Thameslink service stations when considering rolling stock replacement post 2018 be frequencies are to be journey time improvements. sufficient? Include consideration of confirmed. First Hull & intermediate stations when considering how Grand Central were not Thameslink: Include reference to improve journey times. What is source of consulted as they have to Sunday services, ticketing Thameslink service frequencies post 2018? limited calling services in the & open access consideration What will be the peak services for Hitchin county. They will be threats & opportunities post 2018- will there be Thameslink services, included in future will there be fasts retained to Kings Cross? engagement. HCC supports Include reference to HS2 Sunday services should be considered, improvements that could threats such as reducing including how engineering works disruption is improve capacity & reliability importance of Stevenage in handled, minimising 'bustitution', improving in general but other than HS2 section (4.8.2). Include bus connectivity at stations & thin timetabling. ERTMS does not have a south Stevenage station on Should consider ticketing including inter- view on what these should Loop. availability, including with open access be. Stapleford too small a operators, booking office provision/electronic settlement to justify a All stakeholders consulted to purchase, Hertfordshire travelcard linked with station. be included in the final Oyster & bus. Consultees should have document. included Virgin East Coast, First Hull & Grand AgendaPage Pack 10 74 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - ECML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Central. Restore long distance connectivity to north-east & Scotland at Stevenage & improve down connectivity at Peterborough. Improve East Coast capacity/reliability with infrastructure improvements including ERTMS & restored line capacity between Peterborough & Huntingdon. Include reference to open access operators' opportunities & threats. More thought to be given to HS2 impacts including potential for Stevenage to be less important as a hub.
AgendaPage Pack 11 75 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - ECML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy North Herts & Consider the aspirations to be unrealistic and, The devising of aspirations None. Stevenage Green by providing for anticipated demand, as is deliberately aspirational to Party potentially 'wasteful, damaging & be in line with rail industry unsustainable', with no explanation as to how planning methodology and they will be achievable. are conditional on affordability & a value for money business case. The Strategy proposes possible interventions to address these outputs that HCC can lobby for as well as the outputs themselves. Ultimately it is up to the rail industry on what and how interventions are delivered. In proposing to provide for anticipated demand through improved rail services HCC is aiming to encourage more sustainable transport choices with less environmental impact than the private car. No changes are therefore proposed.
AgendaPage Pack 12 76 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - ECML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy North Herts District Include priorities for Great Northern Great Northern suburban A1(M) congestion already Council Suburban. Emphasise importance of A1(M) priorities focus on referenced but jobs/growth for congestion relief, jobs/growth, journey Thameslink programme. No North Herts will be included experience, easy interchange, improving further interventions when confirmed. capacity, frequency, speed & rolling stock. proposed as significant improvement with Hitchin Journey experience & rolling Curve has been delivered stock has been initially (also as per HRUG included but will be response). Capacity, speed considered further in & frequency already proposed Facilities appendix. referenced. Easy interchange will be emphasised in Stations section. North Mymms Improved service frequency to Cambridge Service enhancements to be None. Parish Council from Welham Green & Brookmans Park. achieved through the Thameslink programme for Great northern services. Radlett Society Emphasises that should be 'intra-regional' This would not support the None. rather than intercity expresses at Stevenage, forecast growth for with some fast Leeds/York/north calling at Stevenage & a Finsbury Peterborough for east/west & south Park stop could cause connectivity but otherwise direct to Kings further congestion & wasted Cross. Proposes that only alternate off-peak mileage, therefore no semi-fasts from Doncaster/ Lincoln/ Newark/ changes. Grantham/ Peterborough/Huntingdon call at Stevenage (others at Finsbury Park) in order to relieve congestion and avoid wasted mileage. To be supported by improved connections & cheaper tickets.
AgendaPage Pack 13 77 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - ECML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Stevenage Borough Emphasise the importance of reducing the - Include text on reducing air Council carbon footprint of long distance travel by rail travel emissions in ECML as compared to air travel. Include 'stimulating issues & in overall themes on the wider scale regeneration of Stevenage pages 5 & 12. town centre' as an ECML objective. Reference the recently published 'Stevenage Include reference to Central Framework' by Stevenage First (& the Stevenage Central framework Borough Council) that shifts priority to the aspirations in ECML issues & town centre redevelopment from the train evidence, & as reference station. The BC maintains its commitment to document in 2.1, page 10. redeveloping Stevenage station as a major hub and also requests that a southern Include southern suburban suburban station on the Hertford branch is station, & upgrading Finsbury considered with a multi-modal study to Park to Moorgate as part of address population growth & A602 infrastructure improvements congestion with possible park & ride rail to support Hertford Loop opportunities. Consideration should also be metro. given to upgrading Finsbury Park to Moorgate for county commuters. Transport for Agrees with priorities but Hertford loop HCC to work with TfL to None. London interventions must not impact services in achieve a balance of London area (journey time, frequency). services. HCC not pursuing Suggests working together to achieve CR2 to Hertford East as balance. Could achieve faster journey times terminus because of likely via Hertford East with CR2 freeing up significantly longer journey capacity for quicker services. Suggests times. HCC would support lobbying with TfL for more services calling at increased connectivity at Finsbury Park to maximise journey Finsbury Park if this did not opportunities & ease congestion elsewhere. impact existing services.
AgendaPage Pack 14 78 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - ECML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Welwyn Hatfield Support further increased frequencies at key - Include text on pages 48 & 51 Borough Council stations such as Hatfield & Welwyn Garden on semi-fast services. City as long as other station frequencies in Welwyn Hatfield are not impacted (page 48) & would like to see as top priority. Support Hertford loop proposals as long as it benefits Cuffley services. Welwyn Parish Supports improved long distance connectivity No amends for long None. Council to the north, especially for business. distance as support Requests insertion on page 45 : After the Strategy. Increasing words "there are a number of capacity capacity on ECML constraints on the line" [i.e. Kings Cross to achievable by other means Cambridge], to add "such as a two-track than widening Welwyn bottleneck at Welwyn North, at which station viaduct - to be kept under any significant reduction in the present review. service would be unacceptable" Individual Opposed to HS2. East access to Hitchin Refer Hitchin station Turnback platforms are station; improve Walsworth Road junction. improvements to Station considered sufficient for Stevenage turnback if connectivity for freight facility. Hertford Loop for service & diversionary services to Hertford Loop. HCC has no view on HS2 improvements but text can be Passing loops on latter to permit overtaking. per se, only how released amended to include reference Safeguard land for East West rail links & any capacity on existing lines to whatever intervention will widening of Welwyn viaduct. Luton- can be best used. Freight & achieve aspiration. Stevenage option should be mainly in tunnel. diversionary capability on Grade separation of southbound Thameslink Hertford Loop will be services Finsbury Park-St Pancras retained with Stevenage over/under ECML. Rebuild Finsbury Park turnback. Increasing Station to improve pedestrian flow post CR2. capacity on ECML Long distance stops at Finsbury Park or achievable by other means Alexander Palace, New Southgate (post CR2) than widening Welwyn to access London Overground/Underground. viaduct - to be kept under New running patterns post CR2 at New review. Grade separation of Southgate. Thameslink services south AgendaPage Pack 15 79 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - ECML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy of Finsbury Park is not a priority given the level of committed investment in the area. HCC do not have a view on Finsbury Park station other than connections and flow should be optimised. HCC would support long distance stops at Finsbury Park if there was no impact on existing long distance services at Stevenage and suburban services but does not see this as a priority. Service patterns at New Southgate are to be determined and HCC will comment at the appropriate time. Refer safeguarding/comments of East west routes to Transport Vision survey. Individual Improve train connections for local and long - Amend text to reflect. distance services at Stevenage to reduce waiting times & connectivity to Peterborough for long distance services. Individual Buses from Luton to Hitchin, evening & Airport coaches already Bus connectivity at stations Sunday services. New station on A414 for serve Hatfield, Hertford text to be included in Station coach links to Heathrow/Stansted airport North & St Albans. facility section. Individual Trains fit for purpose. - Amend text in train facility section to emphasise.
AgendaPage Pack 16 80 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - ECML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual Hertford Loop metro good but TfL has plans No changes proposed. None. for Overground services to Gordon Hill & along WAML. Individual Support Hertford Loop Metro & increased No changes proposed. None. capacity to Moorgate. Individual Welwyn Hatfield priority is ECML & Hatfield & ECML aspirations to be None. Welwyn Garden City rather than Hertford realised through Thameslink Loop. Extra semi-fasts from Welwyn Garden programme which is City. committed and through which HCC will lobby to secure maximum improvements for the county and also via released capacity from HS2 which has been included as a longer term priority. Semi- fasts included as an intervention in the Strategy. No changes proposed. Individual Against relocation of bus station from town Bus connectivity to be None. centre if Stevenage to become transport hub. considered on case by case Strategy objectives for bus connectivity to be basis. Refer bus station & aligned with HCC Bus strategy. Car parking car parking at Stevenage to provision at Stevenage if hub. Station facility survey. Individual Improved connectivity from Hitchin-Hertford Included in the Strategy. Amend text to capture later North especially at peak times, preferably trains from Cambridge in with direct trains. Later trains from Cambridge adequate service for to the county. Cambridge. Individual Improved car parking at Hertford Loop Refer to Station facility None. stations - cheaper & more. survey.
AgendaPage Pack 17 81 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - ECML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual Concern re concept of Hertford Loop Metro Aspiration in Strategy of Include train concerns in Train which could lead to trains with less seats, no Metro is for faster services. facility section. toilets and slower services. Individual New trains. Already captured in None. Strategy. Individual Disagree with Stevenage as hub - prefer Stevenage is included as None. Hitchin. More capacity & frequent services hub because of its strategic needed at Hitchin & eastern station access, & importance on service more ticket barriers. connectivity, its current footfall as well as the significant amount of growth that is expected and so will be retained as hub in the strategy. Capacity for Hitchin is included as part of the Hitchin- Cambridge line aspirations. Individual Provide additional platform at Stevenage to Already included as None. separate shuttle services on Hertford Loop committed intervention. from ECML. Individual Frequent direct bus link between Hatfield, St Included as issue/ None. Albans & Abbey Line stations. intervention in Orbital section. Individual Passing loops on the Hertford Loop and Turnback platforms are Text can be amended to reinstatement of link between Hertford considered sufficient for include reference to whatever stations. Reinstatement of rail from Hatfield to Hertford Loop for service intervention will achieve Watford. improvements. Refer aspiration. reinstatement of east west links to Transport Vision.
AgendaPage Pack 18 82 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - ECML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual Higher priority is fast service diversion around Increasing capacity on Amend text on HS2. ECMl 2 track pinchpoint. Assumes HS2 will ECML achievable by other happen. means than widening Welwyn viaduct - to be kept under review. Individual Renationalisation of railways. HCC has no view on who None. manages the railway. Individual Particularly agree with developing Stevenage Already captured in None. as hub. Faster services not at expense of Strategy. slower services, particularly for Welwyn North. Individual Strong branding for Hertford Loop Metro. Branding, noted. Refer to None. Various suggestions of improvements to proposed timetable studies. Hertford Loop. Divert Welwyn trains away from Moorgate to allow greater frequencies for Loop. Individual Improve bus connectivity at stations. - Bus connectivity at stations text to be included in Station facility section. Individual Include Potters Bar in semi-fast services. Thameslink programme & Oyster aspirations to be Semi-fasts on Hertford Loop should not mean ERTMS will make additional included in Ticketing section. a reduced frequency at Crews Hill. Various services possible - Potters suggestions for service frequencies along Bar already referenced. ECML, Cambridge & Hertford branches. HCC to keep under review. Extend Oyster to Stevenage via the Loop. HCC has no preference re Terminate Cambridge services at Reigate Reigate or Tattenham rather than Tattenham Corner. Corner - no changes proposed.
AgendaPage Pack 19 83 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - ECML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual Address Welwyn 2 track pinchpoint. Slower Addressing the 2-track Amend text to reflect balance services prevent provision of more services. pinchpoint is not deemed of services. necessary by Network Rail with other planned/ committed interventions. HCC to keep under review. Individual Address Welwyn 2 track pinchpoint. Update Addressing the 2-track None. Hertford Loop with new trains and increase pinchpoint is not deemed frequency as a result of Hitchin flyover. necessary by Network Rail with other planned/ committed interventions. HCC to keep under review. New trains committed as part of GTR franchise. Increasing Hertford Loop frequency included in Strategy - Hitchin flyover was to improve reliability not capacity. Individual Address Welwyn 2 track pinchpoint. Addressing the 2-track None. pinchpoint is not deemed necessary by Network Rail with other planned/ committed interventions. HCC to keep under review. Individual Proposes inner and outer Hertford Loop Turnback platforms are Clarify text in Hertford Loop Metro with outers being non-stop fast considered sufficient for section. services in London area and inners serving all Hertford Loop for service Text can be amended to stations to Gordon Hill. Overtaking train improvements. include reference to whatever capability at Gordon Hill. intervention will achieve aspiration (around Hertford Loop).
AgendaPage Pack 20 84 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - ECML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual All of the priorities are the same. Some of the priorities are to None. be achieved over short, medium and longer term timescales and therefore are repeated. No change proposed. Individual Unsure if support HS2 improvements over Addressing the 2-track None. direct capacity increases such as second pinchpoint is not deemed Welwyn viaduct. necessary by Network Rail with other planned/ committed interventions. HCC to keep under review. Individual Lobby for long distance improvements via Already included in None. franchise renewals. Strategy.
AgendaPage Pack 21 85 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation MIDLAND MAINLINE
Organisation Consultation Comments - MML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Association of Support long distance stops at St Albans if do - Include text in 4.3.1 section Public Transport not impact reliability/performance of existing on long distance calling at Users services. Could be better to grow services at St Albans to be enabled for Luton Parkway to address growth in calling during disruption and Herts/Beds/Bucks with good motorway to maximise connectivity access/parking, full accessibility & opportunity with Luton. for more airport traffic for operator. Propose enabling long distance stopping at St Albans during disruption. Agree that Corby connectivity would be limited in value. Luton Airport Support the development objectives in 4.3.1, - Include text in 4.3.1 section electrification north of Bedford, addressing on long distance calling at capacity & improving connectivity to the north. St Albans to be enabled for Disagree with longer distance services calling calling during disruption and at St Albans in place of Luton Airport to maximise connectivity Parkway. Propose achieving objectives by with Luton. calling all long distance services at Luton Parkway & improving service frequency, creating rail hub similar to Milton Keynes on WCML. Mill Hill Requests improved service frequency to Service frequency will Add text to emphasise that Neighbourhood London, especially for the Luton/St Albans - improve with Thameslink capacity should be kept Forum Sutton/Sevenoaks, & more late night post 2018 but is under review to ensure services. acknowledged that there Thameslink programme could be some passengers accommodates capacity. standing longer than 20 minute threshold - New late/through night services being introduced by GTR.
AgendaPage Pack 22 86 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - MML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Radlett Society Agrees with improved connectivity to the HCC would support Include reference to open north but not fast services. With electrification additional stops at West access opportunities as proposes regional semi-fasts at St Albans, Hampstead if this did not general concept in Strategy. calling at Loughborough, Leicester, Market impact existing or proposed Harborough, Kettering, Wellingborough, service provision. HCC to Bedford, Luton, St Albans & West work with TfL to achieve a Hampstead. Off-peak fast services should balance of services. HCC to alternate calling at Luton Parkway & West remove long distance Hampstead to reduce congestion/wasted connectivity at St Albans as mileage. HS2 capacity release would create aspiration and emphasise open access & long distance specials semi-fasts at St Albans, with opportunities. improved connectivity at Luton/Luton Parkway for long distance services. Long distance specials are outside the remit of the Strategy. Railfuture Question long distance stops at St Albans & if - Include text in 4.3.1 section longer distance connectivity can be achieved on long distance calling at by other means post 2018 (MM1). Agrees St Albans to be enabled for with extending Thameslink services north but calling during disruption and queries if new rolling stock will be appropriate to maximise connectivity for longer journeys. with Luton. Emphasise appropriateness of rolling stock for journey length in Thameslink extension section (page 55) & in the Station/train facility section on page 74. St Albans City & Supports long distance services at St Albans - Include Leicester as District Council to support growth, especially in ‘am’ peak for destination & emphasis on business; include services to Leicester. am peak for business in section 4.3.1. AgendaPage Pack 23 87 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - MML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Transport for Agrees with priorities but must not be to HCC would support None. London detriment of services in London. Proposes additional stops at West that should join with TfL to maximise Hampstead if this did not interchange potential at West Hampstead by impact existing or proposed increasing stops. service provision. HCC to work with TfL to achieve a balance of services. Individual Strongly supports long distance stops at St Manton chord and therefore Include text in 4.3.1 section Albans but not to the detriment of other connectivity to Peterborough on long distance calling at services journey times but would need is not seen as a priority but St Albans to be enabled for infrastructure improvements. Northern east will be kept under review. calling during disruption and west rail route with Manton chord from Oxford Market Harborough outside to maximise connectivity - Peterborough stopping at St Albans, if the remit of the Strategy. with Luton. electrified. Service balance is needed with HS2 released capacity - suggests 4tph at St Service balance to be Albans with 1 to Nottingham and 1 to emphasised. Sheffield as limited stop. Market Harborough curves to be addressed. Individual Extending Thameslink services would be HCC will press the rail None. even more relevant if long distance operators industry (including via its prioritise longer distance destinations at the response to the revised CP5 expense of intermediate stations but would be Enhancement Delivery plan dependent on the delayed electrification. as a result of the Hendy Station to serve Napsbury/London review) for this to be Colney/Park Street & the rail freight. implemented as soon as possible. London Colney station has not been emphasised as a priority in the consultation and if implemented could cause capacity issues on the line - keep under review.
AgendaPage Pack 24 88 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - MML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual 2 hourly East Midlands slots to St Pancras East Midlands economies Include text in 4.3.1 section from Nottingham & Derby, using existing are outside the scope of the on long distance calling at more comfy diesel trains. Re-open & rebuild Strategy. St Albans to be enabled for Moorgate station to improve economies of calling during disruption and East Midlands with direct trains to City of to maximise connectivity London. with Luton. Individual Strongly supports long distance services at St - Include text in 4.3.1 section Albans - although new direct service will on long distance calling at mean there is less need. St Albans to be enabled for calling during disruption and to maximise connectivity with Luton. Individual Extend Oyster north of Elstree & - To be included in new Borehamwood to St Albans City/Luton Ticketing section. Airport. Individual Further station enhancements to cater for Refer to station facility None. increased demand. survey. Individual Concern of Radlett Rail freight impact on - Text to be included on passenger services. Radlett Rail freight to emphasise balance of services. Individual Strongly supports reinstatement of long - Include text in 4.3.1 section distance services at St Albans. Supports East on long distance calling at West Rail & link at Bedford to MML. St Albans to be enabled for calling during disruption and to maximise connectivity with Luton. Orbital section to be amended to reflect current situation re Bedford.
AgendaPage Pack 25 89 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - MML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual Radlett Rail freight, if implemented, would - Text to be included on disrupt existing services - HCC should refuse Radlett Rail freight to to sell the land and build houses instead. emphasise balance of services. Individual Emphasises making most of existing services HCC has no view on HS2. None. rather than building new routes, e.g. HS2 Link There will be a link between between Luton and Heathrow airports. Luton and Heathrow with a change onto Crossrail at Farringdon. No changes proposed. Individual Opposed to HS2. Improve bus links between HCC has no view on HS2. Amend to reflect emphasis St Albans stations & town centre. Reinstate HCC will press the rail on bus connectivity. electrification. industry (including via its response to the revised CP5 Enhancement Delivery plan as a result of the Hendy review) for this to be implemented as soon as possible. Individual Include increasing services at Elstree as a Thameslink programme will None. priority, e.g. Stopping some fast services create service frequency from/to St Albans. potential - to be kept under review. Individual Suggests long distance services at St Albans - Include text in 4.3.1 section all day but particularly in peaks. During on long distance calling at Thameslink disruption, long distance service St Albans to be enabled for provider to pick up/set down passengers at St calling during disruption and Albans. to maximise connectivity with Luton.
AgendaPage Pack 26 90 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - MML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual New stations at Kempston, Rushden, Burton Refer non-Hertfordshire None. Latimer, Ampthill and London Colney. aspirations to relevant local authority. London Colney station has not been emphasised as a priority in the consultation and if implemented could cause capacity issues on the line - keep under review. Individual Link St Albans stations. Refer to Transport vision. None.
Individual More reliable trains from Luton and St Albans - Include text on reliability. to St Pancras.
Individual New station on A414 with coach links to Hertford North, St Albans & None. Heathrow/Stansted airports, also served by Hatfield stations already new route Luton-Watford-Willesden Jn- serve this function. Refer Gatwick. Release capacity at St Pancras by new routes to Transport new route St Albans-Potters Bar. Vision. Individual Press for reinstatement of electrification from HCC will press the rail None. Bedford - Sheffield, Doncaster. industry (including via its response to the revised CP5 Enhancement Delivery plan as a result of the Hendy review) for this to be implemented as soon as possible.
AgendaPage Pack 27 91 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - MML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual Extending Thameslink services north would View on Thameslink Amend text to reflect mean services would be overcrowded by the services included in improved Luton Airport time they reached Hertfordshire stations. Objective analysis - overall connectivity. Provide direct rail link to Luton Airport from view was in favour- no MML. changes proposed. Individual Relocate of St Albans station to London Road East west connectivity to be None. to link with Abbey & Hatfield lines and new referred to Transport Vision. station in north St Albans to expand HCC has no view on coverage. Extend freight lines from Hendon to extending freight lines - St Albans for metro services. capacity is likely to be addressed with the Thameslink programme and longer term with capacity released with HS2. Individual Renationalisation of railways. HCC has no view on who None. runs the railways. Individual Better connectivity from St Albans to north To be kept under review. St Albans long distance west (Manchester, Liverpool), e.g. via aspiration to be removed Sheffield. from Strategy and improved connectivity to Luton etc. emphasised for connections Individual Urgent electrification. HCC will press the rail None. industry (including via its response to the revised CP5 Enhancement Delivery plan as a result of the Hendy review) for this to be implemented asap. Individual No evidence for long distance services at St Include reference to Radlett St Albans long distance Albans- if stop here they will become slow Railfreight in Strategy & aspiration to be removed services. Impact of Radlett Railfreight on potential impacts. HCC will from Strategy. services etc. HCC should oppose the work to ensure that existing proposals. services are not impacted. AgendaPage Pack 28 92 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - MML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual Commercial decisions are not the remit of HCC does not make None. HCC. commercial decisions but can influence decisions. Individual How is HCC going to respond to the delay to HCC will press the rail None. Electrification? industry (including via its response to the revised CP5 Enhancement Delivery plan as a result of the Hendy review) for this to be implemented as soon as possible. Individual Long distance aspirations could be achieved To be kept under review. St Albans long distance by other means but additional connectivity New rolling stock with aspiration to be removed should be sought with HS2. New longer Thameslink programme- risk from Strategy and improved rolling stock required but should be that some passengers could connectivity to Luton etc. appropriate for journey. be standing longer than for emphasised for recommended 20 minutes - connections. to be kept under review & referred to Train facility section. Individual Not many people in St Albans want to go - St Albans long distance north. aspiration to be removed from Strategy. Individual Curvature at St Albans station meant that - St Albans long distance large gap between long distance train and aspiration to be removed platform led to long distance service from Strategy. withdrawal previously. Individual Improved connectivity to Bedford for onward - Long distance services at St long distance connections could be better Albans to be removed from alternative to long distance stops at St Strategy and replaced with Albans. improved connectivity to Bedford/Luton. AgendaPage Pack 29 93 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation WEST COAST MAINLINE
Organisation Consultation Comments - WCML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Abbots Langley Members support increasing the capacity and Noted. Is included within the None. Parish Council frequency of trains on the West Coast Main overall objective for the line. Line but want to see more direct services to cities such as Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow stopping at Watford Junction. ABFLY The Council should be lobbying Network Rail There are currently no spare None. (NR), the Office of Rail and Road (ORR), the paths south of Watford Department for Transport (DfT) and future Junction. The situation may Train Operator Companies (TOCs) for paths change once HS2 is to be found for through-services to London operational. Euston and / or the West London Line, at least during peak hours, in order to capitalise on the fully mainline-signalled connection recently installed by NR at Watford Junction. Such through services would make the Abbey Line service a much more attractive proposition, thereby increasing revenue. Aldbury Parish Inadequate infrastructure surrounding Tring Highway infrastructure Change text to support Council Station. Narrow road, awkward access and issues around Tring are Crossrail link in principle, but frequently congested, exit area is dangerous, noted. The benefit of not specify the details. inadequate car park. A large volume of traffic bringing Crossrail to the also comes past the station to reach the A41 WCML is to provide a wider which will be exacerbated by the range of journey options, developments contemplated by the Rail and hence a terminal at Strategy Report. The whole of the site of Tring is not essential. Tring Station is part of an AONB and a Site of Archaeological Significance. No particular strategic logic in making Tring the terminus of the Crossrail line. Would make more sense for Hertfordshire to lobby for the line to be extended further north. It could terminate at AgendaPage Pack 30 94 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - WCML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Cheddington where there is more space for development, or Bletchley, linking with the proposed East-West line and providing additional benefits to Hertfordshire residents, or even Milton Keynes. Aldbury Parish Crossrail 1 extension - There is no The benefit of bringing Change text to support Council acknowledgement of the likely detrimental Crossrail to the WCML is to Crossrail link in principle, but impact on the parish of Aldbury and in provide a wider range of not specify the details. particular the residents of Tring Station. journey options, and hence Residents of Tring Station are aware that a a terminal at Tring is not study is being carried out to assess what essential. additional land would be required for sidings and a replacement car park. It would seem more sensible for the stabling of the rolling stock to take place at Bletchley or Milton Keynes. Association of TOP PRIORITY - Short term: promote and Noted. None. Public Transport endorse the case for extension of Crossrail 1 Users services to Watford Junction Medium term: Develop plans with Network Rail for the longer term redevelopment of Watford Junction into a major interchange hub. Particularly if it can be combined with improvements to service frequency on the Abbey Line. This would allow more travellers to avoid a journey via central London. Dacorum Borough Supports the proposals to extend Crossrail 1 HCC would support Statement on improvements Council services to Tring and to develop the role of improvements to the station to Hemel Hempstead station Watford Junction as a major transport as part of wider to be included. interchange. Strategy fails to recognise the development. significant role that Hemel Hempstead station plays within the WCML rail corridor and as a local transport interchange to serve a major AgendaPage Pack 31 95 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - WCML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy town in the County. The Strategy should acknowledge the opportunity for either: - major improvements to Hemel Hempstead station in association with regeneration (as identified in the Council’s (Pre-Submission) Site Allocations document (Proposal MU/4)); or - a new larger Parkway type of station could be developed to enable the growth in journeys as an alternative to the current Hemel Hempstead and Apsley Stations and located between the two on available land. Dalton Warner Conflict between the strategic rail objective to HCC’s position is to lobby None. Davis LLP deliver HS2 and the desire that Watford for long-distance Junction continues to function as a major connections to Watford transport hub. HS2 will not stop at Watford Junction on WCML post Junction and therefore the future capacity of HS2, with the opportunity to the station will serve as a London commuter provide more direct links hub, with additional services delivered by the albeit at slower end-to-end Croxley Rail Link, the Metropolitan and speeds than at present due potentially the Bakerloo line extensions. to increased number of Watford Junction station is not fit for purpose stops. (close to capacity at peak times, commuter car park often full and overflowing) Increased amount of off-site parking. The potential Crossrail 1 extension to Watford, whether this is a temporary solution whilst HS2 is constructed and Euston is partially closed or permanent, will again increase passenger footfall alongside population growth and capacity issues at Watford Junction. Any relocation of the station to accommodate the increased passenger capacity must be capable of delivery within time and budget. AgendaPage Pack 32 96 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - WCML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Dalton Warner Any significant redevelopment/relocation of Noted. None. Davis LLP Watford Junction station, can only be delivered and funded through public finance investment options and subsidised in part by development of the present station car park and other lands, assuming provision of new multi-level parking provision. Shorter term development of the adjoining retail park would set a value benchmark for development on railway lands whilst also potentially providing valuable vehicular and pedestrian access onto St Albans Road and other areas. Hertfordshire Local Economic benefit of Crossrail extending into Noted. Change text to support Enterprise Hertfordshire needs further evidence before Crossrail link in principle, but Partnership committing to it as a priority, particularly if it not specify the details. removes fast services for commuters from Hertfordshire stations into London. The interchange hub is now a medium term priority which we would support in principle. Hertfordshire Local Option of station merger between Apsley and Noted. Impacts and None. Enterprise Hemel Hempstead following HS2 opening opportunities on all stations Partnership has been suggested. Kings Langley is likely on this section of line would to become a more important employment need to be considered if any location rather than simply serving a small major changes to stations residential community and so more stopping are progressed. services are likely to be needed in the future. Radlett Society Crossrail1 should not come to Watford HCC supports in principle None. Junction. Better option is Aylesbury to remove the existing Crossrail excess demand at Marylebone and free up extension to the WCML space for longer regional services on restored proposal rather than Great Central lines. Watford Overground proposing new routes. should be connected through Primrose Hill to There is a need to look at all the Overground services currently terminated opportunities for journeys AgendaPage Pack 33 97 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - WCML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy at Highbury. WC2 a redevelopment should west of Watford. include a single track dive-under connection of the Abbey platforms to the Met extension. Extending the Abbey line southbound between the Reeds Orphange and the main line through the existing rail maintenance yard then loop under the Viaduct through an arch in the Colne Valley to link with the DC lines across Waterfields park. WC2b For interchange stops all seems excessive rather most outside peak travel periods and alternating with Milton Keynes as an Outer Distributor interchange for East West rail and intermediate points south. Radlett Society Promote a pattern of alternating Inner and HCC supports increased None. Outer interchange distributor points on all services at Watford Junction corridors into London outside peak periods. without specifying to the rail For WCML these are MK Central and Watford industry how this should be Junction for East/West Rail, Chiltern, Midland, achieved. Southern Thameslink, Overground, Metropolitan, and Abbey. Railfuture WC1 - Additional rolling stock required for Noted. None. extended services; Crossrail trains and service stopping pattern could be found unsuitable by passengers for longer-distance regional journeys. Savills and Alan Welcome any actions aimed at increasing Noted. None. Baxter Ltd on behalf capacity on WCML suburban services. of Grand Union Support key priorities relating to access and Investments Ltd services at Berkhamsted Station: West Coast Main Line Strategic Priorities: Short term: promote and endorse the case for extension of Crossrail 1 services to Watford Junction, AgendaPage Pack 34 98 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - WCML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Berkhamsted and Tring, Medium term: Develop plans with Network Rail for the longer term redevelopment of Watford Junction into a major interchange hub. Lobby for all regional long distance services to stop at Watford after the introduction of HS2 Phase 1, by offering better interchange facilities for local, Crossrail and LUL services to central London. St Stephen Parish HCC should be lobbying Network Rail, the There are currently no spare None. Council Office of Rail and Road, the Department for paths south of Watford Transport and future Train Operator Junction. The situation may Companies for paths to be found for through- change once HS2 is services to London Euston, at least during operational. peak hours, in order to capitalise on the fully mainline -signalled connection recently installed at Watford Junction. Increasing Abbey Line usage and revenue, and take traffic off local roads. Transport for TfL agrees with Hertfordshire County Noted. None. London Council’s strategic priority for an extension of Crossrail 1 to the West Coast Main Line (WCML) subject to the scheme having a positive business case. Further work is required to better understand the case for investment and TfL will be working with the DfT and Network Rail to assess how the scheme may contribute to the planned Crossrail network. TfL considers that one option for delivering the extension would be a phased approach, where provision for the Link is made as part of a first phase when the HS2 station at Old Oak Common is being AgendaPage Pack 35 99 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - WCML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy constructed. Delivering provision under HS2 Phase 1 Hybrid Bill powers will help avoid any further disruption to Crossrail services once the works at Old Oak Common are complete and will give sufficient time for the optimum solution to be developed. The Link could then be constructed as part of a second phase. In relation to HCC’s priorities for Watford Junction, TfL considers that there is likely to be a case for redevelopment of the station regardless of an extension of Crossrail 1 to the WCML due to the high levels of congestion that currently exist. TfL would encourage the council to lobby Network Rail on this matter. TfL supports the calling of more long-distance services at Watford Junction following the introduction of HS2 Phase 1, subject to the proposal being technically viable and having a satisfactory business case. The issue of congestion within the station would need to be addressed as part of any such proposal. Transport for TfL considers that maximising the Noted. None. London opportunities that may be provided as part of HS2 should also be taken into account when reviewing the priorities for the WCML. Tring Station The changes proposed will directly affect 94 Noted. Change text to support Residents dwellings around Tring Station. The car park Crossrail link in principle, but Association at Tring Station is full each working day. not specify the details. Cross Rail 1 impacts will be: 1) Unknown impact of new sidings and facilities at Tring Station. 2) Car parking facilities will be totally inadequate and needs to be clearly included Agenda PagePack 10036 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - WCML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy in the plan. Either a new, larger car park is needed or some form of Park and Ride set up nearby. In either route the price of car parking has to be controlled to ensure that people are encouraged to use the train to reduce car congestion and impact on the environment. 3) Increased flow of cars into Tring Station to use the new rail services, will need traffic calming measures, clear speed restrictions, and a new design for the cycle path that runs through the hamlet. 4) Consideration for a Control Parking Zone in Tring Station hamlet. Tring Town Council The strategic priorities identified are Detailed requirements for None, but station audit work supported (WC1 as the most important upgrade of station facilities to be undertaken in 2016 and [Q2.11]), an additional priority should be will form part of a station 2017. added that has close parallels to the strategic audit to be undertaken at all priorities for Station Facilities and Freight: 50 stations. “Rail users can expect facilities to be in place for them to access rail services without hindrance”. The deficiencies are - No public toilets - No sheltered waiting areas at the Station Entrance - No disabled access - Insufficient car parking provision (despite an extension) - Access to the stations via open stairs that are slippery and dangerous for the abled-bodied when wet. Watford & West Concern over the number fast trains to Noted. Rail strategy states None. Herts Chamber of London not now stopping at Watford. To meet the need for increased Commerce the needs of business and the growing level Intercity services at Watford of travel between Watford and London we Junction. need this situation redressed as Watford role as a transport hub grows. With the completion of the Croxley Rail link & the Agenda PagePack 10137 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - WCML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy movement of the Metropolitan Line to Watford Junction, this will inevitably increase the volume of potential business traffic through Watford Junction. Danger of losing or not attracting new business to the area. Watford Borough Due to capacity there is a need for Watford Need for major None. Council Junction to be developed. improvements to station included in the strategy. Individual 4.4.1 WCML Long Distance. There’s a HCC’s position is to lobby None. tension here between Hertfordshire’s for the best outcome for aspirations for Watford and the aspirations in Hertfordshire residents. It the midlands and north for more and/or faster should be noted that there services to London; also, looking at the are more passengers using WCML from further north, if there are to be Watford Junction than using additional stops in long distance services, Milton Keynes (2014/15 Milton Keynes would have to be the first figures). priority. Given the growth of MK, can foresee the day when almost all WCML services will have to call there. Individual Link Crossrail 1 to the WCML and divert the Noted. None. outer suburban service onto Crossrail, which could also give an increased frequency between Hertfordshire stations, Milton Keynes and Northampton. The Watford Hub with the Croxley link onto the Metropolitan Line would be a valuable part of this. So would a Crossrail connection via Old Oak Common to access Heathrow Airport; the interchanges from Euston via LUL Northern and Piccadilly lines or via Euston Square and Paddington (or even the 205 bus from Euston to Paddington) are far from easy for air passengers with luggage. A frequent Agenda PagePack 10238 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - WCML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Crossrail service to and from MK would give much better connectivity between the Hertfordshire WCML stations and the midlands and north. Individual WC1 - Absolute top priority. Noted. None. WC2 - In principle do not object to more long distance services calling at Watford Junction, particularly in off peak. The desire for ‘all’ is unrealistic. Support Improving the station facilities. The scale of these changes should be linked to the level of interchange. Such rebuilding plans must be mindful of local east-west connectivity. In particular the Abbey line strategy, a LRT solution which crosses WCML would drastically improve viability. The general public realm along with bus, footpath and cycling links all need significant improvements. Individual 1 - London Midland franchise. By removing Noted. None. stopping and branch services south of Milton Keynes, this should be refocused on the West Midlands. Fast services into London would be retained. TfL should start immediate negotiations to extend Crossrail 1 to WCML slow lines. Crossrail would provide 2tph Tring AND 2tph Milton Keynes stoppers. 2 - Old Oak Common. HCC should give explicit support. This will provide an extremely important timely interchange is to access Heathrow and HS2. 3 - Gateway. Watford Junction can then be promoted as a key gateway to Crossrail for the north and Heathrow in particular. Agenda PagePack 10339 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - WCML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual The WCML is almost at capacity, what fall Network Rail Route Study is None. back measures are possible if HS2 is further still awaited. delayed? Individual a) LM is 'controlled'' from Birmingham. A LM have changed their None. more local control would greatly assist management structure operation & for timekeeping. b) Enhance the which has resulted in better barrier time at Watford Junction & staff it contact with HCC. properly. Uncollated fares on the St Albans Need for improvements at Branch is a public disgrace. Watford Junction are included in general aspirations for the station. Ticket machines are being installed at all stations on the Abbey Line. Individual Crossrail 1 - Definitely beneficial. Noted. None. Watford Junction interchange hub - This will never function fully whilst bus services are so unreliable/uncoordinated and long distance coach service connections are non-existent. Disagree with Longer distance trains calling at Watford Junction - No lobbying necessary for at least ten years. Individual Abbey Line - Services after 10.00pm. An additional late evening None. Restoration of 24 trains in each direction per train is being introduced. day Monday to Friday and Saturday. Continuing to function as a heavy rail line - particularly as newly refurbished rolling stock is due to come into operation during the next two months. Individual Agree with the priorities listed; to promote and Noted. None. endorse the case for extension of Crossrail 1 services to Watford Junction and Tring, to develop plans with Network Rail for the longer Agenda PagePack 10440 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - WCML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy term redevelopment of Watford Junction into a major transport interchange hub, and to Lobby for all regional long distance services to stop at Watford after the introduction of HS2 Phase 1. Individual Allow surbuban (currently London Midland) Issue for rail industry in None. trains more slots on the fast line in peak terms of operational periods and stops at Watford Junction. requirements. Appears it is for the exclusive use of Virgin Trains. Individual Instead of extending Crossrail 1 to Watford Will need to be considered None. and Tring, create a new Crossrail 3 linking in context of wider Transport Watford and Tring to services out of Vision work. Waterloo. Individual An increase in frequency of stopping Tring to There are currently no spare None. Euston services Extending Abbey Line trains paths south of Watford from Watford Junction to Euston. Junction. The situation may change once HS2 is operational. Individual Most important strategic priority: turn Watford Noted. None. Junction into a major transport interchange hub, offering better interchange facilities for local, Crossrail and London Underground services. As an Abbey Line user these developments would enhance the value of the Watford to St Albans branch as a feeder service to the Watford Interchange Hub. Consideration should be extended to include the West London Line currently operated by Southern Railways between Watford Junction and Clapham Junction.
Agenda PagePack 10541 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - WCML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual Opposed to HS2 in its current form as it will Noted. HCC position is to None. destroy many environmentally important support in principle HS2. areas, and it will use economic resources better used for improving existing services. Individual Consider converting Abbey Line into busway Any change to the line’s None. to improve links in St Albans and elsewhere. infrastructure would be most beneficial as part of a wider scheme to increase linkages. Strategy refers to possible longer-term options. Individual There is no mention of improving stopping Noted. None. services to / from Apsley or Kings Langley. While the improvements at Watford and Tring are to be encouraged it makes little sense if the services getting to these hubs from the remaining stations remain at only one or two trains an hour as this does not provide the credible alternative to the car, and does nothing to improve the sometimes hour long wait for a connection from Watford station to Apsley to travel the short distance north. Individual As all trains on the Euston to Tring and Noted. None. Clapham Junction to Milton Keynes line already pass through Apsley and Kings Langley (without stopping), simple changes to the timetabling could easily add services and destinations. By additionally stopping the Milton Keynes to Clapham "Southern" service and a couple of the existing Euston/Tring bound "London Midland" services at Apsley and Kings Langley these would broaden the available direct destinations with minimal Agenda PagePack 10642 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - WCML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy impact on service timetabling (as already happens on occasions when there are delays on the line). Adding a Crossrail stopping service in the future would further widen the range of direct services. While the other proposals are to be commended there are simpler solutions that are being overlooked. Individual Have more trains stop at Apsley. Noted. None.
Individual Having all long-distance trains stop at Any change to the line’s None. Watford Junction *for boarding and alighting* infrastructure would be most is vital. Improvements to the Abbey Flyer Line beneficial as part of a wider - put in a Passing Loop. Have Abbey Flyer scheme to increase trains pass to/from the main line so adding linkages. Strategy refers to the ability to travel from Euston to/from the possible longer-term Abbey Flyer. Running Abbey Flyer trains options. later. Adding a station beside ASDA (between Garston and North Watford) would allow shopping trips to ASDA and Sainsbury's at the Dome roundabout to take place by train. Individual Extension of Crossrail services to Tring is of The benefit of bringing Change text to support benefit to local rail users, but to terminate the Crossrail to the WCML is to Crossrail link in principle, but services here will make the already serious provide a wider range of not specify the details. issues of traffic and parking significantly journey options, and hence worse. There has been an associated a terminal at Tring is not increase in road traffic on local minor roads, essential. many without footpaths and not designed for the capacity. Some of these issues could be addressed by road improvements and additional station car parking. . More sensible to extend the service further north and remove some of the pressures on Tring. Agenda PagePack 10743 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - WCML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual Has anyone really thought through the If link were to be built, HCC Change text to support practicality of stopping Cross rail at Tring. would be lobbying to ensure Crossrail link in principle, but Commuters from Milton Keynes would have that semi-fast services are not specify the details. to stop and change trains at Tring in order to retained in addition to go in to London. Tring station is located in Crossrail services. Hertfordshire Area of Outstanding Natural beauty and significant damage could be done to this area as a result of bad planning on this issue. Have Cross rail ending at Milton Keynes. Individual Most important strategic priority: the turning of Noted. None. Watford Junction into a major interchange transport hub. As an Abbey Line user and supporter, these developments crucial for the enhancement and development of Watford and St Albans branch, as a channel to the Watford interchange hub. Individual Councils should be lobbying the service West London Line services None. groups for rail and road, as well as the are included in strategy. Department of Transport, for routes to be found for through-services to London Euston and/or West London line as this would promote the use of rail services along this line and improve revenue. Individual I think there should be more stops at Watford Supported by strategy. None. Junction for long distance trains, other than Birmingham i.e. Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow. Even the Birmingham train is only once per hour. Individual Improve Abbey Line with passing loop. Have Strategy seeks improvement None. oyster card from London to stations on Abbey to service frequency. Line and also up to Hemel.
Agenda PagePack 10844 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - WCML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual Improved road access to Watford Junction, Noted. None. particularly for Public Transport. Individual Provision must be made for passengers when Noted. None. Euston is redeveloped for HS2, to minimise the disruption. A longer term goal should be to improve the connectivity of Watford Junction to other areas of the South East (e.g. East London). Individual Instate through train services from London There are currently no spare None. Euston to St Albans Abbey. Network Rail has paths south of Watford already provided track and signalling Junction. The situation may infrastructure at Watford Junction to allow change once HS2 is through running of trains between London operational. Euston and St Albans Abbey. Individual Kings Langley station enjoys only a limited Noted. None. northbound service as far as Tring, while other stations along the line (including Tring itself) are served to Milton Keynes and beyond. Individual Long distance trains leaving London used to Strategy includes None. stop at Watford Junction. Should be re- aspirations for more instated to avoid unnecessary trips into InterCity services at Watford London when a fast northern train can simply Junction. be intercepted at Watford. Individual Move Hemel Hempstead station nearer to Strategy to refer to Dacorum Reference to be included. centre of Hemel Hempstead. (as it used to BC aspirations to review the be!) station location. (Note that old station was on closed line to Harpenden rather than on West Coast Main Line).
Agenda PagePack 10945 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - WCML HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual Send some WCML trains to Gatwick via new Strategy includes None. platforms at Willesden Jn/Old Oak Common, aspirations for better taking over current Overground services on services using West London W London Line. Hub could be at Hemel Line. Hempstead. Individual New Hemel Hempstead station on A414 with Strategy to refer to Dacorum Reference to be included. coach links to Heathrow, Stansted and Luton BC aspirations to review the airports. New Castlemead station linking with station location. 61 bus extended back to Luton. Through trains to Gatwick. Individual Crossrail capacity would be better served Noted. None. growing the Chiltern mainline route as the WCML services are already 12 carriage electric trains, so there's little room for growth. Individual Provision of a short link under the WCML Any change to the line’s None. south of Watford Junction linking LO metro infrastructure would be most service to the Abbey Line enabling LO beneficial as part of a wider operation, as well as through services from scheme to increase the Amersham Line to St Albans. linkages. Strategy refers to possible longer-term options. Individual Re-instate through the night trains from Noted. None. Euston to Milton Keynes Central stopping at major stations (hourly). Individual Current privatised rail system is not fit for HCC focus is on None. purpose and should be nationalised. improvements for passengers, and is neutral on the structure of the rail industry.
Agenda PagePack 11046 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation LONDON TO AYLESBURY CORRIDOR
Organisation Consultation Comments – L- A Corridor HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy ABFLY No comments. N/A N/A Chiltern Railways Believe that would be poor business case for - Include reference to running Chiltern services from Watford- complexities highlighted & Aylesbury via the chord as expect low use strategic review as that would not justify additional intervention. trains/diversion of existing trains- priority is to address overcrowded trains. Chiltern line infrastructure & operational complexities make it hard to improve capacity/journey times despite Chiltern Railways attempts to lengthen trains & improve journey times. Suggest a co-ordinated strategy/governing process. Radlett Society Propose in medium term linking the London - Primrose Hill Link not seen None. Aylesbury line to the Abbey Line with dive- as a priority as Overground under WCML after Watford High Street, services are already to potentially to be used by Chiltern/LOROL. increase along the existing Improving Overground frequency is routing to Watford Junction. preferable to Bakerloo for comfort. Propose Refer dive under to extending the Highbury Overground service Transport Vision. via Primrose Hill to increase Watford Junction frequency. Three Rivers Support the Croxley Rail Link, longer/higher - Include text emphasising District Council capacity rolling stock for Chiltern franchise & that improving connectivity improving Watford- Amersham/Aylesbury from Watford-Amersham connectivity via the Amersham chord if there should not impact existing are no impacts on existing services from services to London. Three Rivers to London.
Agenda PagePack 11147 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – L- A Corridor HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Transport for Support Croxley Rail Link, Watford Junction Bakerloo/LO service Include text on page 64 London interchange hub (if station congestion preferences already (4.5.2) re: Watford Junction addressed), improving Chiltern line capacity included. congestion being addressed (if does not impact Met/Chiltern services in & on pages 62 & 64 re: London) & no objection in principle to direct existing services not being Watford-Amersham services via the chord if impacted. operational requirements met & existing Met services on any route are not affected. Against Bakerloo extension north of Harrow & Wealdstone; prefers increasing LO to 4tph. Individual Suggest electrifying Amersham to Aylesbury - Include in strategic review of to facilitate connectivity from Watford to London to Aylesbury line. Aylesbury & improve broader orbital links, incorporating into LUL or LOROL networks. Individual London Transport does not provide for those Refer car parking to Station Text to be included to outside London, e.g. trains with less seats & facility survey. emphasise priorities of HCC removal of fast/semi-fast services. Improve with service devolution to car parking (more spaces/ joint rail & car park TfL. ticket). Individual Create new cross London link via Circle Line This direct routing would be To be considered as part of with fast electric main line trains hard to accommodate on a Strategic Review of the Aylesbury/Amersham/Chesham (each every existing lines and can London-Aylesbury Line 30min) stopping only at Harrow between already be achieved with services to be included in Moor Park and W Hampstead. changes. Running faster the Strategy. Metropolitan Line services in the off-peak (as well as those already running in the peak) without significantly affecting slower services would be useful if achievable with LUL.
Agenda PagePack 11248 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – L- A Corridor HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual Aylesbury services, and potentially London Refer Aylesbury -Abbey line None. Overground services, running on to Abbey link to Transport Vision. Line via flyover. Aylesbury stop on HS2 Aylesbury station outside services. remit - refer to Bucks CC. Individual Retain Watford Met station & terminate Greater benefits of linking None. Chiltern services there and not Watford Chiltern services into Junction. Watford Junction as hub station- no change proposed. Individual Electrify Chiltern rail and divert all Met line - Include strategic review of services to Watford via Croxley Link, with the London - Aylesbury services extended Bakerloo line in 2020. Aylesbury- in Strategy. Watford is likely with Chiltern taking over Chesham services long term. Individual Croxley Rail Link to Abbey Line. - Include in strategic review of London to Aylesbury line. Croxley Rail link needs S8 rolling stock to HCC has no view on the Bakerloo Line text to be permit 1tph to Chesham-Watford; Chesham & particular rolling stock other amended. Amersham from Watford; disagree with than that it should be able to Bakerloo extension. Agree CR1 & increase in provide increased capacity. Milton Keynes - Croydon services. HCC would support Rationalisation of Bakerloo & London connectivity to Chesham if Overground. Fully accessible services. that did not impact on existing services or on other service aspirations but does not see it as a priority. Bakerloo Line is unlikely to be extended by TfL- Overground frequency increase is preferred. Fully accessible aspiration to be referred to Station facility survey. Agenda PagePack 11349 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – L- A Corridor HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual Croxley Rail Link & Watford Hub most Refer links to Abbey Line to None. important. West London Line & London Transport Vision. Overground services running to Abbey Line. Individual Retain Watford Met station to see if needed in Watford Met station will None. future. close once new services on the link commence. It was considered that splitting services between the station and Watford Junction would mean that the frequency of the trains to both stations would suffer and all users would end up with a poorer service overall. It was concluded that continuing to serve both stations would present poor value for money owing to the high cost and reduced revenue of keeping Watford Met open - the latter resulting from many people choosing to use the new station at Ascot Road because it is more convenient. Furthermore, it would result in the majority of Metropolitan line customers on the more heavily used Watford Junction line having to wait longer for trains. Individual Aylesbury- Watford lowest priority. Include in strategic review of None. London to Aylesbury line. Agenda PagePack 11450 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – L- A Corridor HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual LA3 & 4 similar. Liaise with Chiltern on LA3 & 4 are similar because None. opportunities. Link services to Abbey Line. the same intervention has been included in the Strategy for both Chiltern and underground services but HCC has no preference on who provides the services but only that the service be provided. Refer to Transport Vision. Individual Amersham chord already operational with Refer fares zones to new Clarify text on Amersham early/late trains. Consider fare zone Ticketing section. chord. boundaries (Watford Met cheaper than Watford Junction). Individual Rickmansworth & Chorleywood Chiltern Refer to Strategic Review of None. services are potentially at risk; preferred over London- Aylesbury Line. Met services as faster and more appropriate trains. New top priority: securing if not increasing the present Chiltern line service at Rickmansworth and Chorleywood, and in particular working to secure its future in the new franchise after 2021, with higher density trains, new timetables to address different station calling patterns to allow for short/long platforms. Include Rickmansworth - Watford Junction services at appropriate times in new Croxley Rail link timetable. Individual Amersham chord should be short not medium - Amend short-medium term term as already there and would avoid need as needs to be made of having to change at Moor Park. compatible with Croxley Rail Link as minimum.
Agenda PagePack 11551 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – L- A Corridor HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual Prioritise Croxley Rail Link. Chiltern priorities Refer to Strategic Review of None. lie outside Hertfordshire. Discussion on detail London- Aylesbury Line. of Croxley Rail Link and wider network. Individual Quainton Road station should become Outside scope of Strategy- None. permanent stop once Aylesbury services are refer to Bucks CC. extended north. Individual Reinstate platform 5 at Watford Junction for Bakerloo services are not None. Bakerloo services. Improve frequency of favoured by TfL; LO/Bakerloo trains to 10 minutes at Watford Overground frequency, Junction. Run Watford - Princes Risborough included in strategy, is services 2tph to link in with Chiltern preferred. HCC has no view Birmingham services. Croxley Rail Link on what infrastructure would platforms long enough for football traffic. be needed to provide increase, unless it would impact on other services. HCC does not see direct trains to Princes Risborough and on to Birmingham as a priority as this journey can be achieved from Hertfordshire by better alternative means and can be achieved with a connecting train at Aylesbury. TfL's current plans are for 'Cassiobridge and Watford Vicarage Road stations to have platforms at full length allowing for 8 car trains. In addition as part of the MLX, platforms 3 and 4 at Watford Junction will be extended by to allow for 8 Agenda PagePack 11652 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – L- A Corridor HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy car trains. Watford High Street platforms will not be extended and selective door opening will be required. Football traffic has been considered as part of station planning. Stations designs are based on standard weekday demand and it is anticipated larger match day crowds will be accommodated and safely managed by the use of “station control measures”.'
Individual Chord exists & therefore doesn't need Refer to Strategic Review of None. reinstating. Met service from Watford- London- Aylesbury Line. Rickmansworth /Amersham, not Chiltern. Individual Aylesbury- Abbey Line link. Refer to Transport Vision. None. Individual Transfer infrastructure to Network Rail HCC has no view on who None. beyond Rickmansworth & on fast lines south manages the infrastructure - to Harrow. no changes proposed. Individual Retain Watford Met station. Watford Met station will None. close once new services on the link commence. It was considered that splitting services between the station and Watford Junction would mean that the frequency of the trains to both stations would suffer and all users would end up with a poorer service overall. It was Agenda PagePack 11753 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – L- A Corridor HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy concluded that continuing to serve both stations would present poor value for money owing to the high cost and reduced revenue of keeping Watford Met open - the latter resulting from many people choosing to use the new station at Ascot Road because it is more convenient. Furthermore, it would result in the majority of Metropolitan line customers on the more heavily used Watford Junction line having to wait longer for trains. Individual Potential bus reduction if Amersham - Refer to Strategic Review of None. Watford rail services. London- Aylesbury Line. Individual Don't need Watford to Amersham & - Clarify text. Aylesbury service. Individual Bakerloo trains unsuitable for longer distance Refer to Train facility None. services. section. Individual Watford Junction- Aylesbury/Amersham Refer to Strategic Review of None. services have limited value. London- Aylesbury Line. Individual Bakerloo extension not needed. Support Refer to Strategic Review of Amend Bakerloo text. Watford- Aylesbury services. London- Aylesbury Line.
Agenda PagePack 11854 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation ORBITAL
Organisation Consultation Comments – Orbital AL HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Abbey Line CRP Against bus rapid transit (but supports LRT & - Revise Abbey Line section tram-train) & skip stop services. Include to reflect concerns including through running to London Euston & Crossrail on BRT, skip stop services, destinations. & on other priorities including through running. Abfly Against bus rapid transit for Abbey Line as - Revise Abbey Line section part of wider East West corridor. Propose to reflect concerns including 'ultra-light rail' as acceptable solution e.g. on BRT, skip stop services, Parry People Movers on Stourbridge branch desire to retain as heavy rail line, and maybe light rail. Services can & on other priorities technically now run through to London with including through running at recent revise track layout work by Network least in peak, TfL Rail. Rail industry should be challenged re management & potential link available paths on WCML. Against skip stop with MML. Amend text on services, particularly if 3 station closures, but passing loop business case could amalgamate Park Street & How Wood & on track layout now with new station at Tippendell Lane. permitting through running. Challenge the 'extreme under-utilisation' of the branch with significant ticketless travel. Challenge low business case for passing loop as new innovative examples of LA lead schemes such as at Penryn with split platform, available rolling stock & high levels of rail investment. Propose revised priorities of: 1. Retention of the Abbey Line as a heavy rail feeder service using electric traction - owned/operated/managed as part of the National Rail network. 2. Promotion of an improved service frequency and 'clockface' timetable, 30mins or possibly 20mins, with a Bricket Wood passing loop and second train. Agenda PagePack 11955 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – Orbital AL HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Potentially with amalgamation of two stations at How Wood and Park Street to reduce the end-to-end journey time. 3. Promotion, through the lobbying of NR, ORR, DfT and future TOCs, for through-services to London Euston and/ or the West London Line, at least during peak hours. Possibly also: 4. lncorporation into TfL-controlled/specified/ managed services as part of the London Overground network. 5. lnvestigation of a 'St Albans Link', in the long term, to the Midland Main Line. APTU Include through running post HS2 to Euston & - Revise Abbey Line section Old Oak Common to CR1; enable 30 min to include through running & frequency with calling at less used stations consideration of calling at hourly (every other service) less used stations less frequently to enable 30 minute frequency. Bricket Wood Against bus rapid transit & include through - Revise Abbey Line section Residents running to reflect concerns on BRT Association & through running. Cambridgeshire Prefer EWR central section link via Hitchin or Amend 'Other orbital County Council Sandy movements' section to reflect revised priorities of EWR Consortium & best options for HCC, & HCC aspiration of Luton - Stevenage as local link
Agenda PagePack 12056 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – Orbital AL HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Chiltern Railways Consider Abbey Line together with re- - Amend 'Other Orbital appropriating former rail lines in the county to movements' section to create rail equivalent of GLC's 'Ringway 4' include reference to concept, linking St Albans to Hertford via investigation of former lines Hatfield, Welwyn & Stevenage; also former as potential intervention to lines from Hemel Hempstead to Harpenden to be considered further by Welwyn etc. Transport Vision work. CPRE Against BRT. Proposes better use of rolling - Revise Abbey Line section stock. to reflect concerns on BRT. Dalton Warner Propose commissioning feasibility study into - Amend 'Other Orbital Davis LLP (for LRT/BRT. movements' section to HSBCP) include reference to further investigation of LRT/BRT as part of wider east west options within Transport Vision. Mill Hill Support light rail on Abbey Line, with potential To be picked up by None. Neighbourhood future extensions to St Albans City and Transport vision. Forum Bushey? Bushey Heath stations, & on to the former Edgware to Mill Hill East line North Herts District Consider including consideration of east west Refer to Herts Highways, None. Council movements to UTP & other strategy work. etc.
Agenda PagePack 12157 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – Orbital AL HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Radlett Society Propose dive-under through Watford Viaduct WCML & MML dive unders None. between Watford Junction & Watford High & orbital route to be referred Street to reconnect the Abbey Line with the to Transport Vision; suburban network (slim design on piers akin infrastructure solutions for to Cassio Viaduct- enabling the Abbey Line will be Chiltern/Overground services from St Albans considered with the rail to Amersham, Shoreditch, Croydon & industry; safeguarding of rail Oxford); propose bringing back 2 platforms at lines will be considered Watford Junction, Bricket Wood & St Albans where appropriate. Abbey to facilitate 4tph; propose dive -under on Midland Main Line at Napsbury, to facilitate a new halt & Park & Ride facility for St Albans with Abbey line services continuing southbound on the Midland slow lines through the Northern Heights tunnel to the freight lines from Silkstream to Finchley Road. Restored Halts at Colindeep, Welsh Harp (for Brent Cross) and Finchley Road terminus on the freight (to be designated Abbey Metro) lines would create new transit opportunities. Propose consideration (& safeguarding) of former rail lines to address future growth, e.g. Alban Way. Propose orbital route from Finchley Road to Amersham via Napsbury, Park Street, Watford, Croxley with Brent Cross & St Albans P & R potential.
Agenda PagePack 12258 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – Orbital AL HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Railfuture Against BRT (but support LRT between 2 - Revise Abbey line section to towns- not just stations). Propose reflect BRT concerns & consideration of light rail for former rail lines. include reference to Amend OM3 as East West Rail central investigation of LRT on section options have changed. former rail lines as part of wider east west options in Transport Vision. Update route options for EWR central section. St Albans City & Would not 'necessarily' support BRT. Propose - Revise Abbey line section to District Council that options should be explored to improve reflect BRT concerns & services. 'Other Orbital movements' section to emphasise exploration of other options as part of Transport Vision. St Albans Civic Against BRT (but support LRT with passing Consider depot location with Revise Abbey Line section Society loop). Propose that light rail vehicles could be any detailed feasibility for to reflect concerns on BRT. serviced at new depot at Watford Junction; light rail. Refer additional propose accessing trains from Everard Close access at St Albans Abbey at St Albans Abbey - both sides- with to the TOC/Network Rail. selective door opening. Continue to use Continue to press for existing rolling stock if maintained. Consider improved maintenance of best franchise operator for the line including existing rolling stock with the Overground/Southern. TOC & DfT. Not for HCC to specify train operator.
Agenda PagePack 12359 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – Orbital AL HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy St Stephens Parish Against BRT (but not LRT although doubt - Revise Abbey line section to Council feasibility & concern that could delay other reflect concerns on BRT & more practical options). Through running is skip-stop services/station possible with new track layout. Against skip- closures, desire to retain as stop services & station closures. Challenge heavy rail & on other the 'extreme under-utilisation' of the branch priorities including through with significant ticketless travel. Challenge running at least in peak, TfL low business case for passing loop as new management & potential link innovative examples of LA lead schemes with MML. such as at Penryn with split platform, available rolling stock & high levels of rail Amend text on passing loop investment. Propose that retain Abbey Line business case & on track as heavy rail, with through running at least in layout now permitting peak and investigation into link to Midland through running. Main Line; consider incorporation into London Overground concession. Stevenage Borough Options for East West Central section have - Amend 'Other orbital Council changed; strategy should be updated. movements' section to Propose that a Luton-Stevenage route be reflect revised priorities of jointly promoted by Herts councils & Luton EWR Consortium & best Borough Council as part of the East Coast options for HCC, & HCC Route Study. Propose that greater aspiration of Luton - consideration be given to use of former rail Stevenage as local link lines for east west heavy rail opportunities in the county, starting with St Albans to Hatfield. LRT/BRT are not viable solutions- only heavy rail. Welwyn Hatfield Luton-Stevenage route not likely now as part - Amend 'Other orbital Borough Council of EWR central section. movements' section to reflect revised priorities of EWR Consortium.
Agenda PagePack 12460 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation ACCESS TO AIRPORTS
Organisation Consultation Comments - Airports HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy ABFLY Suggest adding running Abbey Line services Refer to Transport Vision. None. onto West London Line & on to Gatwick to improve connectivity & journey choice. Luton Airport Long distance services should be - Long distance services at St concentrated on Luton Airport Parkway, as Albans to be amended to railhead for region; stops should not be enabling intercity calls shared between stations. Luton airport is during disruption. Include evaluating the poor access between the text on Airport consideration station & terminal including mass transit & of improving access heavy rail. Improving overnight services between station & terminal, to/from Luton Airport Parkway (and through include improving overnight St Albans) should be included. services to the airport Radlett Society Propose that Heathrow/HS2 should be Reinstating through services Include text on London reached via London Overground at Old Oak on the WLL to Gatwick is an Overground connections at Common or by Croxley Link if CR1 extended aspiration that could be Old Oak Common to to Amersham. Mainline services will not considered with future Heathrow. return to WLL, Southern services are part of franchising arrangements GTR franchise. For Stansted the two Hertford and so no amends are stations should be reconnected & the proposed. The possibility of Braintree spur reinstated. reconnecting the 2 Hertford stations will be considered in broader orbital movements with the Transport Vision. Will refer the Braintree spur reinstatement to Essex County Council.
Agenda PagePack 12561 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - Airports HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Railfuture Amend reference to Luton-Stevenage route - Remove reference to Luton- as East West Rail Central section option as Stevenage as EWRCS has now been dropped from this scheme. option and consider as local Agree to improved interchange connectivity scheme). Reference airports for indirect services (no view on direct in Orbital section under options). Consider if wider orbital options potential wider orbital referenced in Orbital section could feed north options & wider orbital of London airports. options feeding airports in this section. Transport for Reference should be made to Mayoral - Include reference to new London preferred option for new airport serving airport, edit text re CR2 to London, & should lobby with TfL for good rail Stansted airport & include access. Good links to Heathrow will remain ensuring balance between useful if new town. No objection to Stansted services, include text on priorities if do not impact services in London taking into consideration but not CR2 to Stansted as too slow. Any heavy use of WLL in plans. plans for WLL for improved access to Gatwick must consider existing heavy use by London passengers. Watford Borough Suggest developing orbital rail route from Refer to Transport Vision. None. Council Watford to Heathrow around M25 with interchange stations & new stations on key access routes. Individual Support Heathrow priority. No action needed. None. Individual To improve access to Stansted emphasises CR2, 4-tracking, Hertford Level crossings to be the following in order: CR2, 4-tracking WAML, east branch improvements, included. Hertford East branch improvements including Stansted second tunnel, doubling track at Ware, removing level Rye House chord all Orbital section to be crossings, station upgrades, Stansted 2nd included in the Strategy. updated to reflect current tunnel & extra platforms; western access from Refer Stevenage-Stansted status of East West Rail, Stevenage with East West Rail, Hertford option to Transport vision including detail on Luton- North & Rye House chords; Stansted eastern and Braintree line to Essex. Stevenage. access with reinstatement of Braintree line. WCML/WLL service Agenda PagePack 12662 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - Airports HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Considers that there is no additional benefit aspiration to be retained as from an extra WCML/WLL service towards alternative to CR1 link. Gatwick as would be achievable with CR1 link Station upgrades to be with change at Farringdon. Bedford-Hitchin is referred to Station facility favoured East West central section option survey. and that Luton-Stevenage could be better served by other options. Focus should therefore be on east west to Stansted for airport connectivity. Individual Luton-Stevenage no longer an option for East Review broader orbital Orbital section to be West rail central section. Support improved options for airport updated to reflect current connectivity at interchanges rather than direct connectivity in transport status of East West Rail, services to Stansted. WCML via WLL to Vision. including detail on Luton- Gatwick/Three Bridges. Consider if broader Stevenage. Airport section orbital options could assist with connections text to be clarified. to airports. Individual East West Rail should be government priority - Orbital section to be but not via southern option. updated to reflect current status of East West Rail, including detail on Luton- Stevenage. Individual Hertford East to Stansted services & fast To be reviewed with CR2. None. Stansted services stopping at Broxbourne/ Cheshunt unlikely to happen. Propose 1 in 4 Stansted Express services run to Stratford to Crossrail & through to Heathrow. Individual Disagrees with WLL/WCML link to Gatwick as Overall analysis strongly None. WLL is slow line & Brighton Main Line has no supports WCML/WLL to spare capacity at times. Upgrade of West Gatwick - therefore no Anglia Line from Liverpool Street to change proposed. WAML Stanstead Airport to reduce journey times and upgrade to improve services increase frequency of services. to Stansted already included. Agenda PagePack 12763 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - Airports HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual All outside usage of respondent. N/A N/A Individual Hertford East to Stansted link would reduce - Clarify text on this London service frequency - develop connectivity. Broxbourne as hub instead. Don't prioritise airport services over others. Individual Southern East West rail option too much of a New links to be referred to Orbital section to be diversion to be viable & omits Bedford. Transport Vision. updated to reflect current Extension of Hertford Loop to Luton via status of East West Rail, airport separately from EWR is viable, even including detail on Luton- more with restored link to EWR at Bletchley Stevenage. via Leighton Buzzard. Enables removal of LAP MML stop, facilitating St Albans stop. Individual Short term bus link Watford-Heathrow via Detail to be referred to HCC Bus connectivity to be Rickmansworth, Ruislip Gardens (new Network Planning. emphasised. Wycombe line platforms), A40, A312 and Hayes, encouraging more Virgin stops at Watford Jn pending Hemel Hempstead hub.
Individual Through services from Abbey Line via West Refer to Transport Vision. None. London Line to Gatwick.
Individual Luton-Stevenage option should be mainly in HCC has no views on air Orbital section to be tunnel. East west routes & existing routes to travel, other than to facilitate updated to reflect current be grade separated. Air travel to be reduced; access by rail. Detail to be status of East West Rail, Luton airport to be closed & reused for referred to HCC Network including detail on Luton- housing; no airport expansion. Reinstate 700 Planning, together with Stevenage. bus via Hitchin- Stansted & improve National Express aspiration. frequency; improve frequency of 724 to 15 Bus connectivity to be minutes & extend to Stansted & call at emphasised. Hertford east station. Integrate national Express into local bus network for pass holders.
Agenda PagePack 12864 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - Airports HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual Include reference to other WCML stations - Amend text. that could benefit from WCML/WLL to Gatwick. Individual Best east west route is Leighton Buzzard; Refer east west route to None. other comments addressed in other sections. Transport Vision. Individual Prioritise connectivity to whichever airport is Refer links to Transport None. confirmed to expand. Link Abbey Line to vision. WCML & then via Cricklewood & Acton to Heathrow. Provide direct bus from St Albans to Heathrow in shorter term. Individual Improved connections needs to be improved - Amend as appropriate. rail connections. Individual This service is too unreliable. - Reliability to be emphasised in Strategy. Individual This service is too unreliable. - Reliability to be emphasised in Strategy. Individual Air travel should be discouraged; improve and The Strategy is considering None. reduce cost of long distance trains to reduce options to improve rail people's desire to fly. travel. Individual Transport options between Rickmansworth & Refer to Transport Vision. None. Heathrow/Stansted/Luton. Individual Reinstatement of Gatwick services from West This is dependent on Coach/bus connectivity to Coast Main Line via West London Line should capacity being available on be emphasised. be short term. Reinstatement of coach the Brighton Main Line service from Watford to Heathrow. which is not likely in the short/medium term. Individual Airport links and east west links in central Captured in Strategy. None. Herts are crucial. Individual Airport connectivity for business and tourism. - Emphasise in text.
Agenda PagePack 12965 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - Airports HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual Door to door taxis often quicker & cheaper The Strategy is looking at None. than rail, so why bother with latter. how a viable alternative can be provided. Individual Link Heathrow, Gatwick & Luton airports with Refer to Transport Vision. None. Abbey Line to MML, and to West London Line, together with Crossrail. Individual Improve connections north from Stanstead Outside remit of Strategy- to None. Airport to Cambridge, Peterborough and be referred to LSCC. Norwich. Individual Crossrail 2 to Stansted not Cheshunt to Stansted not being pursued None. support forecast housing & potential 2nd by HCC as CR2 terminus as runway, & facilitate Stansted Express journey times would be too services. long. Individual Improved bus service between Heathrow & - Include reference. Stansted & Watford & St Albans. Individual Direct link between Luton airport & MML. - Amend text to reflect improving connectivity to Luton airport. Individual Link between Abbey Line & West London Refer to Transport Vision. None. Line to Gatwick. Individual Link between Abbey Line & West London Refer to Transport Vision. None. Line to Gatwick. Individual Link between Abbey Line & West London Refer to Transport Vision. None. Line to Gatwick.
Agenda PagePack 13066 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation HS2
Organisation Consultation Comments – HS2 HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Radlett Society H1a not ALL but MORE. Include H2a- propose no change to H1a - amend text to more Northampton, Rugby, Coventry, Nuneaton, text as unlikely that an services, replacing all. Lichfield exclude expresses like Stoke, intercity service would stop Liverpool, Chester H2a alternate off peak at Finsbury Park given its H3a - amend to Express stops at Stevenage or Finsbury Park. proximity to Kings Cross. intraregional. H2b alternate off peak Regional stops at H2b - service frequencies at WGC or Hatfield. H3a St Albans not intercity WGC & Hatfield to be Capture shortfall in car but intra-regional. H3b Not service capacity considered, particularly for parking at Elstree & but frequency especially semi-fast during the local services but unlikely to Borehamwood in proposed peak. Capacity shortages here are for CAR be stops for longer distance Station facility appendix, to PARKING, double decking is a priority. as Stevenage is primary be created in 2016. Greater coordination of overlapping station for this in Herts. services/franchises. Less emphasis on direct H3b- retain existing text as trains when a same platform interchange is capacity covers both service more efficient. frequency & train length. Individual Make as strong a case as possible for - Amend text in 4.8.2 to Watford, identifying demand both to and from include making strong case Watford from the midlands and the north. by determining demand to Milton Keynes is preferred as destination in and from Watford. the south to Watford. Individual Proposals would enhance Abbey Line as No changes to this section. Orbital section to be feeder line to Watford hub. amended. Individual Greater range of destinations directly served - Text to be amended. for long distance; opportunities to travel directly on EC/WCMLs to the north/Scotland, especially at peak times. Long distance service fast options - not stoppers. Individual Improve Abbey Line frequency to 20 minutes Links to Gatwick to be Orbital section to be to Euston/Gatwick with passing loops. referred to transport Vision. updated including on Abbey Line.
Agenda PagePack 13167 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – HS2 HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual HS2 opposition but if built released capacity HCC has no view on HS2 None. should be prioritised for local services. Euston other than how best use can reconstruction will cause significant be made of released disruption. Improved pedestrian/bus links capacity on existing lines. between Euston/St Pancras/Kings Cross. The priority is for local service improvements but to balance this with improvements to longer distance service provision. HCC will work with the rail industry to ensure that service disruption is minimised during Euston reconstruction and that links between termini are improved. Individual London Midland has plans to increase longer HCC will work with future None. distance services serving Hertfordshire with franchisees to ensure that HS2 capacity release. the best balance of services is secured for the county. Individual Stopping more long distance trains at Watford HCC supports train Text to be amended to more Junction will decrease line capacity. Make all lengthening to provide long distance at Watford commuter trains 12 car. additional capacity & this is Junction. reflected in the Strategy. Individual Likelihood of slow long distance services to HCC will work with the rail None. Doncaster/York with HS2, with fast long industry to ensure a balance distance abstraction to HS2. Strategy is of services with HS2 needed for classic network as well as for capacity release including HS2. on Network Rail's Route studies & Capacity Plus. Individual More platforms at Watford Junction to make To be considered if needed None. most of HS2 capacity release (new platform 5 with paths made available. & platform 9 rebuild). Agenda PagePack 13268 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – HS2 HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual WCML-Gatwick link to release capacity at See WCML & MML None. Euston - see WCML. Divert some HS2 trains sections. to (better connected) St Pancras with MML displaced by new Potters Bar link - see MML. Individual Ensure that connectivity is optimal for HS2 - Connectivity to be services so that journey time gains are not emphasised in the Strategy. lost. Individual Subject to no reduction of service at the Other interventions (IEP & None. remaining capacity bottlenecks, in particular ERTMS) are proposed to Welwyn North. compensate for these- to be kept under review. Individual Improvements are too reliant on HS2. HCC priorities are for local Clarify HS2 text. Improvements to local services rather than services but also to achieve longer distance. some improvements to longer distance services. Individual HS2 opposition, focus should be on improving HCC has no view on HS2 None. existing network. other than how best use can be made of released capacity on existing lines. Individual Focus should be on commuting services HCC has no view on HS2 None. which are likely to suffer reduced funding with other than how best use can HS2 & higher fares. be made of released capacity on existing lines for commuting and long distance services. Individual HS2 opposition. WCML likely to see slower HCC has no view on HS2 None. long distance services and more freight. HS2 other than how best use can to Leeds will be slower. HS2 of little benefit to be made of released the county. capacity on existing lines and will work with the rail industry to this end.
Agenda PagePack 13369 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – HS2 HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual More not all long distance services at Watford CR1, WLL services & freight Amend text for Watford Junction. Commuter services south of Milton included in the Strategy. Junction. Keynes should be all be managed by TfL. Thameslink extensions CR1 & services via WLL from WCML should subject to detailed analysis. Connectivity to Luton to be mean that Euston has capacity. Freight emphasised for long capacity to be accommodated or alternatives distance services. provided. 4 out of 6tph long distance trains to stop at St Albans and no Thameslink extensions north. Individual Disagrees with HS2 as currently proposed. HCC has no view on HS2 None. Prefers fewer but longer trains. other than how best use can be made of released capacity on existing lines. Individual Should explain risks of HS2 and not raise - Text to be clarified. hopes. Individual Cannot foresee any additional capacity as will It is expected that a None. still need fast long distance services on proportion, if not all, of fast classic network to serve existing populations long distance services will and to accommodate CR1 would need to transfer to HS2.HCC will sacrifice London Midland or Southern trains. work with the rail industry to ensure a balance of services with HS2 capacity release including on Network Rail's Route studies & Capacity Plus. Individual Proposals are speculation as they are so far Rail industry development None. ahead. Capacity could be solved by not timescales are long and so running empty trains. need to be considered well in advance, even if they will be subject to change. HCC will work with the industry to ensure that the county's needs are best served. Agenda PagePack 13470 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – HS2 HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Empty trains are often unavoidable particularly with heavy commuter patterns in one direction but appropriate use of rolling stock is fundamental to achieving greater capacity and HCC will work to ensure that it meets the county's needs.
Agenda PagePack 13571 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation STATION FACILITIES
Organisation Consultation Comments - Stations HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy ABFLY Emphasised the unkempt state of the trains Already captured FA3 as None. on the Abbey Line and therefore support for most important in radio securing better rolling stock (FA3). buttons, therefore no action needed. Aldbury Parish Insufficient car parking provision at Tring To be picked up in station None. Council station leading to parking in adjacent roads, facility survey. likely to worsen if CR1 implemented. Hertford Town A lift for platform 1 at Hertford North. Detail to be picked up in Include reference to Council Station facility survey. platform access in section 4.9. Hertfordshire Local More integration between other modes and To be picked up in Station Emphasise integration Enterprise rail. facility survey. between modes in section Partnership 4.9. Hertsmere Connect Inadequate car parking, with Borehamwood, To be picked up in station None. Radlett & Potters Bar at capacity leading to facility survey. displaced street parking. Inadequate facilities, e.g. no toilet at Bushey. Access at peak times. Elstree & Borehamwood as gateway for tourism. Pitstone Parish Insufficient car parking provision at Tring To be picked up in station None. Council station leading to parking in adjacent roads, facility survey. Refer cycle likely to worsen if CR1 implemented. route to HCC cycle route Implement foot/cycle path from Pitstone - lead. Tring station to help address car parking. Provide toilet & more shelters at Tring. Improve forecourt to permit increased bus services & car access to cater for more passengers. Improve access to platforms from car park.
Agenda PagePack 13672 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - Stations HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Public Health Ensuring appropriate provision of facilities/ To be picked up in Station Include text on access for all station accessibility for the elderly, wheelchair facility survey. in section 4.9. users/pushchairs. Radlett Society Train procurement beyond scope of strategy. Retain aspirations for rolling None. Provision of toilets on all stations/trains; staff, stock to assist lobbying for Wi-Fi, Herts travel planners at all stations. improvements. Station CCTV in all car/cycle parking. Double deck facility improvements to be full car parks. picked up in Station facility survey Railfuture Station facility improvements to be addressed To be picked up in Station Include examples of facility through franchise specifications, e.g. facility survey. improvements in Section improved way-finding signage and 4.9. information screens, public address, WiFi, toilets, weatherproof shelters, seating, staffing, and shared commitment with DfT/Network Rail for more step-free access. Savills and Alan Address access to & within station for all, To be picked up in station Amend text to reflect. Baxter Ltd on behalf including integrated services & through facility survey. of Grand Union ticketing. Investments Ltd St Albans City & Improve passenger circulation at Harpenden To be picked up in station None. District Council & St Albans City stations & car park capacity facility survey. at Harpenden, which are inadequate for current & projected use. St Stephen Parish No comments. N/A N/A Council Three Rivers Supports sustainable and disabled access to - To be referenced. District Council stations. Include detail of other types of station facility.
Agenda PagePack 13773 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - Stations HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Transport for Improvements to station facilities to be To be picked up in station Include examples of London prioritised, including RTI (screens & PA), help facility survey. improvements in section points, high quality CCTV, staffing during train 4.9. operation, high quality ticket retail facilities, refurbishment/ enhance cleaning/maintenance Tring Town Council More clarity on FA1 & 2 such that there is a - Amend text to include more minimum provision for all stations. FA3 but detail in section 4.9. only if FA1 & 2. TOC/NR to be accountable for poor facilities and include local engagement. Welwyn Parish Trains to be comfortable/inviting to promote - Include more detail on Council off-peak use & reduce car use - unlike new facilities. class 700 which will be unsuitable for longer journeys. Woolmer Green Access, capacity & car parking to be To be picked up in station None. Parish Council addressed at Knebworth station to cater for facility survey. housing planned. Individual Concern over highway capacity & bus service Refer highway capacity None. provision in vicinity of Tring station, issue to Herts Highways & particularly with housing development at bus service provision to Pitstone, with. Improved station facilities at HCC Network Planning. Tring are needed including disabled access Station facility upgrades are and provision of toilets and design should be planned by Network Rail consistent with AONB. with lifts and improved station building in CP5. Individual Station car parking should be free to deter Car parking Include reference to electric travellers making whole journeys by car. facilities/charges to be charging point in Station Electric car charging points at stations. considered with train facilities section. operator on a station by station basis.
Agenda PagePack 13874 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - Stations HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual Sustainable means of getting to stations to be - To be referenced in prioritised over car parking. Better CIS that station/train facility section. are consistent and up to date. Toilets/air conditioning/ bicycle spaces on all trains. Well- lit station signs/train announcements. Enclosed /heated waiting rooms. Individual Access improvements to Hitchin station from Refer to Station facility None. east side & footbridge at end of car park. survey. Individual Lower quality rolling stock without disabled & More gates at St Albans are Text to reflect that rolling bicycle spaces to provide more seats, planned in CP5. stock facilities to be including first class. Lifts at all stations. More appropriate for service ticket barriers at St Albans to limit congestion. provided. Disabled provision is legal requirement. Access for all is key aspiration for HCC to be reflected in text. Individual More car parking could impact sustainable - Modal integration to be access. Connecting bus services for those emphasised in the Strategy. not near rail stations. Individual Suggests that 'All Hertfordshire stations with To be considered in Station None. a footfall of over 400k pa will be fully facility survey. accessible by 2030'. Clean accessible station toilets; sustainable access to stations. Individual Access for all provision. Higher capacity Refer to Station facility None. rolling stock with features such as grab rails, survey. ventilation, leg room.
Agenda PagePack 13975 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation FREIGHT
Organisation Consultation Comments - Freight HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Freight on rail Disagree that peak passenger services are - Amend to passenger affected by freight services as very few run at services being affected by this time. Propose timetable optimisation to freight. Include timetable allow for off-peak freight services. The MML, optimisation in 4.10.1. ECML - south of Hertford North, and the Include reference to the hourly freight path on the WAML to London importance of the MML, the Gateway Port should be safeguarded. ECML- south of Hertford North, and the hourly path on the WAML to the London Gateway Port, to the freight industry in 4.10.1. Hertsmere Connect Concern over impact of Radlett Railfreight - Include reference to Radlett services on passenger services. Railfreight in Strategy. Radlett Society Consider how freight investment could - Expand existing text on how facilitate passenger services, e.g. Napsbury freight improvements could freight dive-under reconnecting the Abbey facilitate passenger Line to the Midland slow lines, under used services. freight lines from Silkstream to Finchley Road for an outer stopping Metro service, occasional freight lines around Buckingham could be upgraded to reconnect passenger links. St Albans City & Include reference to the decision of the - Include reference to Radlett District Council Secretary of State in 2014 to grant planning Railfreight in Strategy & permission for a Strategic Rail Freight potential impacts. Terminal at Park Street and the implications of that decision for the Strategy.
Agenda PagePack 14076 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - Freight HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Tring Town Council Network Rail should clearly publicise the Not the remit of the Rail None. amount of commuter delay caused by freight Strategy but the rail industry traffic on the commuter line into London on how to manage delays Euston (from, for example, Tring) and by freight traffic. produce an action plan to minimise the disruption. Freight deficiencies at Tring should be referenced (see response to question 2.12). Individual Re-routing freight via an electrified Felixstowe - Include reference to to Nuneaton line (particularly with MML example of this in 4.10. electrification) would release capacity on the WCML, MML & the ECML for passenger services. Welwyn Hatfield Supports better management of - Include reference in 4.10 of Borough Council freight/passenger services on the Hertford managing freight/passenger Loop to protect Cuffley passenger services in services on Hertford Loop. times of ECMl disruption. Individual Reschedule freight trains so that they pass Managing potential impacts None. through stations after passenger trains have of freight services on departed so that impacts are minimised. passenger services is emphasised in the Strategy. Individual Create new strategic freight route from Refer to Transport Vision. None. Channel Tunnel to ECML via Barking, Seven Sisters and Ware using WAML enhancements and new curve, to take HGVs off M25/M11/A14/A1 corridor. Individual Freight trains are noisy and they should not The network in the county, None. run at night. with competing passenger and freight services, is nearing capacity. One of the few times when this is less the case is through the night when passenger services Agenda PagePack 14177 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - Freight HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy are limited. HCC will work to achieve a balance of services but not running freight trains is unlikely to be achievable. Individual Against Radlett Railfreight Terminal. Prioritise Passenger services have Text to be included on passenger services at peak times. been prioritised in the updated status of RRFI. Strategy at peak times. Individual Who has the role of encouraging potential rail HCC to work with rail Text to be included on freight? Is the freight industry persuaded to industry to achieve balance updated status of RRFI. think small as well as big? Restored of services. New station not Napsbury station for RRFI staff. Potential a priority at this stage as employees from London Colney should be would compromise already able to cross tracks to access RRFI. limited capacity on the MML but to be kept under review, together with access across line from London Colney, if and when a rail freight depot is progressed. Individual New MML freight lines & reinstating rail link to Refer to Transport Vision. None. the Abbey line would improve the Radlett railfreight project by reducing impact on Thameslink & improves Abbey line upgrade business case. Individual Supports freight by rail and would like to see Noted. None. expanded. Individual Provide passing loops and 3/4 tracking on all Infrastructure improvements None. 2 track sections e.g. Hertford Loop and have been included in the WAML. Reduce the total amount of freight Strategy on the Hertford transport by reducing unnecessary Loop and WAML, to consumption and increasing more locally facilitate increased capacity based production. Divert lorry freight onto for services, including for railways/ships where possible. freight. Consumption and Agenda PagePack 14278 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - Freight HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy globalisation are beyond the remit of the Strategy. The Strategy encourages modal shift from road to rail. No changes proposed. Individual HCC to not sell the land for RRFI and if not Managing potential impacts Text to be included on possible to ensure that passenger services of freight services on updated status of RRFI. are not impacted by its implementation. passenger services is emphasised in the Strategy. Individual Encourage rail freight to reduce road deaths. The Strategy encourages None. modal shift from road to rail. No changes proposed. Individual Supports the RRFI & urges that HCC should The Strategy encourages Text to be included on sell the land to reduce road freight. modal shift from road to rail. updated status of RRFI.
Individual Strategic rail/road freight interchange at Park The Strategy encourages Text to be included on Street. modal shift from road to rail. updated status of RRFI.
Individual Large companies to use Abbey Line for night Refer to Transport Vision. None. freight & help fund infrastructure improvements to support. Individual Supports RRFI and of using rail freight to HCC will work with the rail Include text on road and transport minerals/aggregates for road and industry to ensure a balance house building and of house building in the county. The Strategy of services on the MML to developing ports, and should reference developments in freight meet the county's needs. updated status of RRFI. ports in the north-east, at Thamesport, Felixstowe and Southampton. Believes that all freight can be accommodated in the existing MML timetable. Individual Against RRFI because of impact on local HCC will work with the rail Text to be included on community. industry to ensure a balance updated status of RRFI. of services on the MML to meet the county's needs. Agenda PagePack 14379 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - Freight HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual Provided that there is NO impact on any Managing potential impacts None. passenger travel needs of freight services on passenger services is emphasised in the Strategy. Individual HCC to not sell the land for RRFI or re-open HCC will work with the rail Text to be included on discussion of direct access from/to the M25 industry to ensure the updated status of RRFI. otherwise any future plans to support new county's needs are met. terminals will be treated with cynicism. Individual Strongly opposes RRFI as will be hard for HCC will work with the rail Text to be included on services to serve it. industry to ensure the updated status of RRFI. county's train service needs are met. Individual The Rail Freight Terminal at Radlett will HCC will work with the rail Text to be included on cause considerable disruption to passenger industry to ensure the updated status of RRFI. services during its construction. When county's needs are met and complete the extra road traffic that it will that any disruption/impacts generate will cause massive traffic are minimised should the congestion. RRFI go ahead. Individual No HCC expertise that understands current HCC has drawn on ARUP None. freight needs. freight expertise to inform the development of the Strategy. It will work with the rail industry to ensure the county's needs are met going forward, drawing on appropriate expertise as relevant.
Agenda PagePack 14480 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments - Freight HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Individual Compromise between passenger and freight HCC to work with rail Amend wording. services, with the latter not to be discouraged industry to achieve balance because it is forced to use less than optimal of services as emphasised times. Replace new terminals being in the Strategy. compatible with local needs of local communities with 'with minimal impact' to emphasise wider context. Individual Emphasises need of 4-tracking/infrastructure 4-tracking/infrastructure None. improvements on WAML to accommodate improvements included in freight from DW Thamesport/Tilbury & the Strategy to address Barking displaced from North London capacity issues on WAML. Line/GOBLIN (because of increasing Metro HCC has no view on Overground services) to Willesden & WCML. electrification of Electrify Ely /March/Peterborough to run Ely/March/Peterborough but electric freight north & west and allow long & would support if provided middle distance electric passenger services improved/additional services along ECML to divert via Hitchin, Ely, that did not impact existing Cambridge, Peterborough, to provide resilient service provision. service and allow more rail opportunities north & west from Stansted.
Agenda PagePack 14581 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation TOP PRIORITIES
Organisation Consultation Comments – Top Priorities HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy ABFLY Disappointed at low prioritisation of Abbey - Revise Orbital section to Line. Include extra priorities: short-term - capture aspirations as per retain as heavy rail, improving frequency via Orbital analysis. passing loop, later trains & through-running to London; longer term - improve east west local & strategic connectivity with MML /Abbey line link; include in London Overground network. Broxbourne Improving access to Stansted should be top Improving Stansted access None. Borough Council priority. was not included as a top priority as it did not address multiple conditional outputs - no amends proposed. Luton Airport Support Thameslink services improvements - St Albans long distance to including extension to the north, Luton- be amended to enabling Stevenage for East West Rail & electrification stops during disruption. but not long distance stops at St Albans, Include text on working including with HS2, nor service improvements together with wider to other stations with HS2. stakeholders to consider improvements in the round. North Herts & Support investment in public transport which Passengers and bus None. Stevenage Green should be brought back into public ownership. companies have been Party Refuse to comment on priorities until invited to comment on the stakeholders have been consulted. document (both directly, including user groups, & via advertising campaign). The Strategy sets out priorities for the county regardless of public/private ownership. No amends therefore proposed.
Agenda PagePack 14682 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – Top Priorities HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Radlett Society St Albans long distance stops should be intra- CR1 terminus of Amersham Amend text for long distance regional not intercity; CR1 extension should would benefit less at St Albans to enabling be to Amersham not Watford. Outlines pros & Hertfordshire stations and intercity stops during times cons of Luton- Welwyn Garden City, so no change to Watford of disruption. Cambridge-Royston, Old Hitchin line & route terminus. East west options via Sandy/EC for EWRCS. to be considered by Transport Vision. Railfuture Disagree with St Albans long distance stops; St Albans stops captured in None. disagree with Luton - Stevenage as top quick reports; capture anti- priority as 2 better options. Disagrees with 4- Luton-Stevenage; capture tracking ahead of CR2. no to 4-tracking before CR2. Transport for Supports top priorities as long as do not CR2 to Stansted is not a top Include text in 5.2 section on London impact London services. Does not support priority and so no amends working with wider CR2 to Stansted. needed. stakeholders to ensure priorities are considered in the round. Text will be amended in the International Airport & WAML sections. Welwyn Hatfield Increasing frequencies at key stations, such This is included as a general None. Borough Council as Welwyn Garden City & Hatfield, as long as aim and as priorities in the it does not impact services to other stations, respective corridors and so should be a top priority. is not needed as a top priority.
Agenda PagePack 14783 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation GENERAL AIMS
Organisation Consultation Comments – General Aims HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy North Herts & Enhancements should be based on evidence Stakeholders listed are The Strategy will be updated Stevenage Green rather than projected need. Passengers & those that returned to ensure that it supports the Party local bus companies should be included as comment. most accurate figures for stakeholders. Sustainability is unlikely with growth including current suggestions. housing/employment.
Text on sustainability will be strengthened. Radlett Society Scale by emphasis on direct services to - Amend text in appropriate preserve simpler services & reliability- most sections. connections will be platform change (Radlett- Gatwick, Watford-Heathrow) St Albans City & Make case for more seating capacity before Whilst Thameslink will Amend figures in Strategy District Council 2043, with St Alban's population to grow by provide extra capacity it is (map & appropriate 12.8% by 2031 with attendant housing need acknowledged by NR that evidence sections). of 8720 homes (St Albans C&DC SHMA this could be more standing. 2013-14). Text to be amended to include keeping this under review to ensure that capacity is appropriate.
Agenda PagePack 14884 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation OTHER COMMENTS
Organisation Consultation Comments – Other Comments HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Abbey Line Provided a summary of CRP purpose & No action needed. None. Community Rail membership. Partnership Aldbury Parish Not informed of consultation or listed as All parish councils were None. Council stakeholder. contacted but it appears that some contact details were out of date. These have been updated. Aldbury Parish Aldbury Parish Council, Tring Town Council, All parish councils in None. Council Wigginton Parish Council, the Tring Station Hertfordshire were Residents' Association and the neighbouring contacted but it appears parishes in Aylesbury Vale (Pitstone Parish that some contact details Council and Ivinghoe Parish Council) were not were out of date. These consulted. have been updated and they will be listed as a stakeholder in the Strategy. Aldenham Parish Has no objection in principle to Strategy No action needed. None. Council proposals. Association of Emphasise importance of smart ticketing for - Include text on smart Public Transport through tickets and off-peak/part-time workers, ticketing aspirations. Users beyond ITSO compliant tickets to include phones/NFC devices/contactless, to be added to other services rather than new Herts card.
Bricket Wood Object to BRT for the Abbey Line as would - Text repeated from Orbital Residents' carry fewer passengers, be slower, be costly to section - amend text as per Association implement & preclude rail opportunities in the Orbital section. future; favour a heavy rail passing loop as solution.
Agenda PagePack 14985 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – Other Comments HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Broxbourne Greater emphasis to be given to creating - Strengthen text on how rail Borough Council inward investment. Broxbourne to be included can support inward as economic hub with 7000 new jobs by 2030. investment/visitors. Include Consideration should be given to scenario Broxbourne as economic planning to recognise technology advances. hub with 7000 jobs by 2030 Impacts of HS2 need to be considered further. (p36 etc.); reference to Should include focus on visitors as well as scenario living & working in Executive summary vision. planning/technology P 36 to include employment growth. Specify advances; more on HS2 timeframe for Strategy. Include Southbury impacts; Strategy Loop on diagrams on p4 & 32. Include how the timeframe; Southbury Loop Strategy will interface with local planning on p4 & 32; how interface processes. with planning processes. Cambridgeshire Supportive of rail as sustainable option for No action needed. None. County Council forecast growth & of Strategy objectives.
Chiltern Railways Provide background detail on the existing & - Include more detail in future franchise arrangements & key contact London - Aylesbury line details. Particularly supportive of emphasis on section & strategic review of station & train facilities. Chiltern line is currently route. underused with low line speeds & short platforms constraining growth. Complex ownership makes improvements hard without 3rd party investment. Propose a strategic review of route.
Agenda PagePack 15086 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – Other Comments HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy CPRE Hertfordshire Would strongly oppose new rail schemes in Growth figures in the Text will be amended to currently undisturbed countryside based on Strategy will be revised as emphasise that these are aspirational growth figures not tested/adopted Local plans are adopted interim figures to be that conflict with locally/nationally determined but an indication of confirmed with Local plan policy. Should revise strategy to meet adopted potential scale of growth is adoption. and not draft plans, by local plan deadline of required now to influence 2017. Scale of growth cannot be sustainably emerging rail schemes & achieved within green belt/AONB & planning franchises. policy constraints. Dacorum Borough No comments. N/A N/A Council Dalton Warner Submitted comments on behalf of HSBC No action needed. None. Davis LLP Pensions who own land on the St Albans Road Retail Park, next to Watford Junction.
East Herts Council Support principle of the Strategy & the key - Include Princess Alexandra themes & conditional outputs. Include Princess hospital (Mount Vernon Alexandra & Mount Vernon hospitals in table already included) in table 3.3 on p23. Serious constraints of the 3.3 & EHDC CR2 implementation of CR2 identified by East Herts constraints in West Anglia DC should be recognised in the Strategy. Main Line section.
Agenda PagePack 15187 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – Other Comments HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Freight on Rail More should be included on the benefits & - Reference freight in key impacts of freight including in the key issues & themes & issues section & themes section, including include more detail in economic/social/environmental benefits Freight section. locally/regionally/nationally. Include reference to government policy, road & rail freight complementing each other, importance of moving house-building materials to support forecast new homes, optimisation of existing timetable in short-term. Include existing freight rail services: -to Broxbourne (Rye House) aggregates 1 train per week usually Tues/Weds, to Stevenage (Langley Junction) - aggregates- 1 train per week usually Sun, to Radlett - aggregates up to 2 trains/week usually at night, to Watford Junction - aggregates, 1 train per week. Additional services forecast to proposed Radlett Rail Freight terminal. HCC - Rights of Eliminate community severance/push for - Include text on how level way adequate replacement infrastructure where crossings should be dealt Level Crossings are closed, i.e. bridges / with. underpasses / diversions before extinguishments. Hertfordshire Highlighted that attracting more people to area - Include text on attracting Infrastructure could affect car parking provision at stations; more people could impact Planning Panel competing interests for the West Anglia Main car parking. Include support Line; positive impact of cycle parking; & for cycle parking in overall queried how more services could be provided analysis. on the Hertford North & East Loops.
Agenda PagePack 15288 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – Other Comments HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Hertfordshire Local Solid strategy setting clear priorities and - Include Kings Langley & Enterprise supporting key economic locations in line with Two Rivers as economic Partnership LEP strategic priorities. Include areas of growth areas in West Coast economic growth not included in development Main line section. plans (e.g. Two Rivers between Apsley & Hemel Hempstead & Kings Langley). Support freight improvements outside county if releases capacity for passenger services & benefits the environment.
Agenda PagePack 15389 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – Other Comments HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Hertsmere Connect Hertsmere Connect is partnership of Watford & Refer service frequency Include explanation of what West Herts Chamber of Commerce & improvements at Bushey Hertsmere Connect is in Hertsmere Borough Council. Respondent also to ARUP. stakeholder list. chairs 3 business fora in Hertsmere. Transport & infrastructure are 2 key constraints for Include in overall analysis: business growth. Concerns relate to : car parking, station facilities, motorway congestion (A1, A1M, M1, M25, onward connectivity, Radlett A10, M10, M11), poor east west routes & lack Railfreight concerns. of effective alternatives; poor rail frequency at Elstree & Borehamwood relative to other stations, particularly given footfall & growth, & at Potters Bar/Radlett & Bushey; ease/cost/availability of car parking (at capacity at Bushey/Radlett & Potters Bar leading to displacement); capacity/reliability of services; onward transport connectivity; high costs of travel; station facilities (no Bushey toilet); increasing population/ housing & commercial development; impact of increased freight with proposed Radlett rail Freight terminal; access to stations; Elstree & Borehamwood gateway for high tourist footfall.55% of Hertsmere workforce commute in from Watford/St Albans/Luton/Stevenage/Hemel Hempstead
Agenda PagePack 15490 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – Other Comments HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Historic England Proposals, including 4-tracking & platform/train - Include text on taking into lengthening, could impact Historic consideration benefits and environment. Relevant designated assets impacts of proposed should be mapped with supporting text. Include schemes when being history of railways in the county & the following developed & consulting with wording 'Ensure rail development proposals the appropriate officers to seek to conserve and enhance the Historic determine what schemes to Environment, heritage assets and their support & how potential settings' under the Environment & impacts could be mitigated. sustainability objective. Include more on history of rail lines in the county. Hitchin Rail Users Disappointed that most consultants/LA reps & The stakeholder list only Will include Hitchin in key Group user groups were not involved earlier, including included those that had stations. Central Beds. Hitchin is key railway centre and commented. In the final should be included as such (including in TL document all stakeholders Update housing figures on diagram on p47 & 'key stations' to London. approached will be map on p20 & include the Current rail usage should be included for each included. User groups Hitchin curve. station, passenger volumes, service levels & were consulted later so overcrowding. Map on p20 should include that they had tangible correct housing figures & the Hitchin curve. A information to comment list of worked up schemes should be included on. TL map has been to take advantage of windfall funding. Action produced by the DfT & is plan has not been commented on as it is not amendable. Current expected to change significantly. rail usage was considered as part of a Baseline report which informed the Strategy. Station facility schemes will be included as an appendix after the station facility survey.
Agenda PagePack 15591 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – Other Comments HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Interlinking Transit Proposes a London Air Rail Transit System To be considered as part None. Solutions Ltd. (LART Rapid Rail) using 'brown' land along of Transport Vision. M25 & M1 (see also Watford BC). Luton Airport Included comments for question 2.2: have - Include aspirations of LAP in pursued 24/7 service as part of Thameslink airports & MML sections. franchise. For question 4.4: set out airport's Amend long distance plan to expand by 2026 with 35 000 new jobs aspirations for St Albans to by 2030. Need to integrate with other transport facilitate stopping only modes for passengers & employees. Have during times of disruption. been working with the DfT on the East Midlands franchise to secure: 4 outer trains per hour taking 32 minutes from St Pancras (6tph in peak); 2 slower inner tph taking 42 minutes from St Pancras and 1 fast non-stop to Luton Airport Parkway taking 20 minutes. Aiming to concentrate & increase frequency of long distance services at LAP to serve as rail head for region Mill Hill Proposes strategic link from St Albans to Capacity from St Albans to Include text on smart Neighbourhood central London using Northern Line (former Mill central London already ticketing for the county Forum Hill East to Edgware/Bushey Heath line and on provided by Thameslink to Bushey, Watford Junction & St Albans with services and so a new line light rail). Extend Oyster to all Hertfordshire as suggested is not seen stations. as a priority. - Oyster is not ITSO compliant and is likely to be superseded. North Mymms Support improved rail services, particularly Noted. Amend text in station Parish Council connectivity to other modes. Encourage TOCs facilities section to include to provide discounted youth travel. Improve bus connectivity. access to hospitals with connecting buses.
Agenda PagePack 15692 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – Other Comments HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Pitstone Parish Requests being added to consultee list for - Add to contact list. Council Tring station. Public Health Support Strategy vision as access to - Include support for station sustainable transport important for health & facilities (active travel & wellbeing. Connectivity to employment & access) in overall analysis. education important. Health & welfare Include text on health & principles should be included: active travel wellbeing in overall (station facilities & access- give equal priority objectives & in station to active travel infrastructure); accessibility & facilities and on information equality for all; information- health & welfare in station facilities. targeted promotions on stations/trains & signposting to active travel networks & physical health opportunities. Radlett Society Separating Hertfordshire from UK rail network Refer Hospital line to Include text on disused lines not ideal. Comprehensive rail network used to ARUP. as possible options for new exist including east west links which could be routes. re-used. There is an error in Appendix B1 Page 101 Disused Rail lines. The red line incorrectly labelled Hospital Branch is two lines both diverging from the Midland at Napsbury. The original connection from the Watford LNWR at How Wood to the Midland is known as the Napsbury Branch. Diverging from the Midland to the east was a siding to Napsbury Hospital used for Coal, produce, and WW1 Hospital Carriages. There was no connection between these two lines on opposite sides of the Midland main line both merging at Napsbury Station and controlled by the Napsbury signal box. Railfuture Commends the process, including stakeholder No action needed. None. engagement, & methodology/structure. Agenda PagePack 15793 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – Other Comments HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Savills and Alan Acting on behalf of Grand Union Investments - Include details of Baxter Ltd on behalf who own land to south of Berkhamsted which stakeholder in stakeholder of Grand Union has been included in Dacorum Borough list & reference to Investments Ltd Council's local plan to accommodate 800 development. homes. As the masterplan emphasises improving sustainable transport links to the train station GUI support the general objectives of the rail strategy, including Crossrail. St Albans City & Hard to comments as unclear how schemes - Include reference to District Council were prioritised. More reference to Herts LEP LEPSEP & HIPP & some Strategic Economic Plan should be included& context detail. also Herts Infrastructure Planning Partnership (HIPP). Provided context of the district with population, commuting & economic details. St Stephen Parish Disappointed by approach to Abbey Line as - Amend text as per response Council supports retention as heavy rail with passing in Orbital section (comments loop to allow increased frequency; also through reiterated here). running to London, later trains, Midland Main Line link to the Abbey Line & requests engagement with user groups. Stevenage Borough Robust Strategy with confusing terminology at Terminology is consistent Reference to be made to Council odds with land-use planning. Could be with the rail industry that land-use planning improved with: overarching holistic vision; Strategy is intended to equivalents as appropriate. recognition of regeneration benefits, including influence and is therefore of Stevenage station; new south Stevenage retained. Overarching station to relieve A602 with multi-modal study; vision will come with promotion of heavy rail link between Luton & Transport Vision work and Stevenage by relevant LAs; termination of CR2 amendments made to Rail at Stevenage rather than Hertford East; Strategy subsequently if support for the Rye House chord; upgrade of needed. Other requests Finsbury Park to Moorgate; study on heavy rail addressed in corridor/topic east west links. comments.
Agenda PagePack 15894 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – Other Comments HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy Three Rivers The Strategy does not refer to new/improved LARTS to be referred to A Strategic review for the District Council rail schemes in Three Rivers other than those Transport Vision. Position rail lines in Three Rivers planned. Reserve judgement on Action Plan on on Action Plan noted. area will be included in the p86 as pros & cons not set out. Include text on: Strategy to identify key assumption is that HS2 will go ahead but this is priorities. Text to be not confirmed; Croxley Rail Link will benefit not included on HS2, Croxley just Watford but also the wider area; reference Rail Link. to London Air Rail Transit System (LARTS) as potential light rail scheme along M25 connecting to Heathrow. Tring Station Broadly in favour of strategy proposals, apart Refer need for car parking Include support & Residents from Crossrail 1, which could impact the 94 in Station facilities survey. disagreement in overall Association dwellings near Tring station. Should be a CPZ analysis. around station to prevent displaced parking which is likely to worsen without CR1. Support Include TSRA in future Watford Junction as hub. Tring Residents correspondence & in Association should be included in future Stakeholder list. correspondence related to the Strategy.
Watford Borough Welcome Strategy to support existing/modelled Greater growth & new Population, housing & Council population/housing growth & inform Network lines, with attendant employment figures will be Rail (population baseline to be updated before development/ safeguarding updated ahead of document finalisation). However Strategy to be considered by publication & regularly should go further to address how more Transport Vision. Abbey reviewed. significant growth with London migration could Line comments captured in be addressed with potential new lines. Sites WCML. /routes should be safeguarded for these, & rail owned land/ car park rationalisation should be considered for new development. Abbey Line: improve frequency & connectivity to Watford Junction & onwards, welcome studies on how to achieve.
Agenda PagePack 15995 of 353
Responses to the Rail Strategy Consultation Organisation Consultation Comments – Other Comments HCC Response Action for Rail Strategy WCR250 Very comprehensive conditional outputs as set No action needed as None. out in table 3.3. Pleased to West Coast Main captured in overall Line outputs, recognition of freight/passenger analysis. service balance & improving connectivity to Milton Keynes & the north. Welwyn Hatfield Not enough attention given to need for public Refer to Transport Vision. Highlight Welwyn Garden Borough Council transport in general to accommodate growth City & Hatfield as transport with constrained road network, including hubs. potentially increasing bus subsidy, and particularly the need for east west movements along the A414 corridor given significant expected growth. Should promote Welwyn Garden City & Hatfield as Regional Transport Nodes/strategic transport hubs with more growth in Welwyn Hatfield than Stevenage. Should also be considered for LTP. Welwyn Parish Support strategy objectives including good Comments already None. Council long distance services at Stevenage for captured- see HCC action connectivity to the north, particularly for in ECML responses. business travel. Should include desirability of comfortable trains to promote off-peak travel/reduce car use- class 700's are not suitable for longer journeys. Insert : at page 45, top bullet point, after the words "there are a number of capacity constraints on the line'', add "such as a two-track bottleneck at Welwyn North, at which station any significant reduction in the present service would be unacceptable". Wiggington Parish Proposals largely beneficial to Wigginton but - Add to stakeholder list for Council no specific comments given. Request being future. added to stakeholder list for the future.
Agenda PagePack 16096 of 353
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel Appendix 2
Hertfordshire County Council
Rail Strategy
June 2016
Spatial Planning & Economy Environment Department Tel: 01992 556117
Agenda Pack 161 of 353 1
Agenda Pack 162 of 353
Hertfordshire County Council Rail Strategy 2 Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
1. Introduction Transport, including rail, continues to play a key role in maintaining Hertfordshire as a place where people want to live and work. Recent and emerging national and local strategies point to the continuation of growth in Hertfordshire and neighbouring areas, with ever increasing pressures on the county’s existing transport system. Central government projections indicate that the strategic road and rail networks will become increasingly congested if nothing, or even a minimum, is done. The Rail Strategy is therefore required to ensure that the railway in Hertfordshire can support economic growth and development by agreeing investment priorities for the next fifteen years and beyond. It sets the strategic framework against which decisions regarding future franchises and investment in key elements of infrastructure can be identified and prioritised. Specifically, the strategy will be used to influence the rail industry’s strategy development process, such as Network Rail’s Long Term Planning Process (LTPP), and ensure that conditional outputs feed through into key documents such as the Government’s Initial Industry Plans (2016, 2021, 2026) and High Level Output Specifications (HLOS). It will also inform the specifications for the local rail franchises when they are retendered. This document replaces the 2011 Rail Strategy, and recognises the considerable advance in national rail proposals over the last five years. The Strategy is evidence-based and has therefore been informed by extensive baseline analysis and engagement with key rail industry and local stakeholders. This supporting evidence makes up a complementary suite of technical reports.
1.1 Approach and Objectives A high-level strategic approach has been used, identifying conditional outputs and potential interventions that can either be developed directly or can support third parties to develop. This is in line with current rail industry practice. These outputs and interventions were considered against the following four rail development objectives which have been identified for Hertfordshire: • To support competitiveness, the Strategy includes improvements in links to the rest of the country to maximise benefits from the agglomeration effect that better transport connections between centres can bring; • To support economic growth, the Strategy comprises a number of interventions that improve the rail service for commuting trips from/into Hertfordshire; • To address sustainability, the Strategy proposes improvements to encourage modal shift, including for east-west orbital and long distance movements as more sustainable alternatives to travel by private car and air respectively; and
Agenda Pack 163 of 353 3
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
• To support population growth, the Strategy includes recommendations for the development of strategic transport hubs around key stations.
Importantly, the Strategy recognises that, if opportunities are fully exploited, the county could benefit from significant investment in rail enhancements in the next 5-10 years, through major projects such as the Thameslink Programme and Crossrail. It could also benefit from utilising capacity on the existing railway network released by the opening of High Speed 2 (HS2). Proposals for strategic investment in rail have been identified to meet these objectives, which the county council working with partners, can plan and deliver.
1.2 Key Issues and Themes The key themes identified through the baseline analysis were: rail plays a very important role in the Hertfordshire economy; a few key rail stations in the county are dominant, particularly for travel to London; there is a lack of good orbital (east-west) rail links in Hertfordshire; there are issues with station and train facilities that affect the passenger experience of rail in the county; rail is an important component of the Hertfordshire transport network in providing mobility and accessibility; rail will need to accommodate increased travel demand in future for passenger and freight services; a number of Hertfordshire’s rail lines are forecast to be over capacity by 2031; and a number of rail projects are committed or planned that will transform rail travel in the region in the next 10-15 years. Overarching themes that occur over a number of lines included: capacity constraints and bottlenecks on lines; peak time overcrowding on key services; highway congestion on major roads; strong projected population, employment and housing growth; low frequencies and slow journey times from key stations; gaps in suburban and long distance provision; and poor connectivity between key Hertfordshire towns.
Agenda Pack 164 of 353 4
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
2. Rail Strategy Development The rail infrastructure within Hertfordshire consists of a number of independent rail corridors, generally running south–north through the county. There are different franchised operators for each of these routes and Network Rail treats each corridor as a discrete route with its own demand pressures and capacity and investment priorities, many of which are driven by considerations outside Hertfordshire. The Rail Strategy therefore deals with each corridor individually, while at the same time developing an overall coordinated strategy that addresses network-wide topics, such as east-west movement or station access, as shown in the diagram below.
Conditional outputs are presented in the Strategy for each corridor/topic together with the development objectives/issues that they address, the relevant supporting evidence, and the recommended interventions. Conditional outputs are a statement of the long term planning aspirations for the level of rail service provided. They are required to inform future investment decisions and are not constrained by considerations of cost and deliverability. They are designed to articulate a vision or aspiration for the future rather than a final recommended project or scheme, and are conditional on affordability and a value for money business case being determined. Interventions are potential schemes that, either in isolation or as a package of measures, serve to address the identified conditional outputs. These are divided into ‘committed’, ‘planned’ and ‘other possible’ interventions, to be delivered in the short term (2014-19 or Control Period 5), medium term (2019-2024 or Control Period 6) and longer term (2024- 2029, or Control Period 7, and beyond).
Agenda Pack 165 of 353 5
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
Committed interventions are those schemes that are already firmly committed and funded by DfT as part of the Network Rail Control Period 5 funding for 2014 - 2019 confirmed by the Office of Rail Regulation in 2013. It also includes commitments made by franchised train operating companies (such as new Hertford Loop rolling stock and service enhancements to be provided by Govia Thameslink Rail) and major DfT sponsored rolling stock procurements. Planned interventions are schemes that may already be well defined and intended to be implemented after CP5, but are not yet firmly committed, and therefore may still be at risk. Where implementation of these interventions has a crucial impact on Hertfordshire their firm adoption will continue to be lobbied hard for. This is particularly relevant as the Control Period 6 funding review process will start in 2016, while franchise policy will continue to evolve over the next few years. Alternatively, there may be new ideas or proposals that need further development work to determine if they are viable. Other Possible interventions are those that have been developed by the Rail Strategy, are not currently being planned by the rail industry and where issues are not expected to be fully addressed by committed/planned interventions. At the end of each route/topic section, the strategic priorities are identified. These are the main interventions that comprise the strategy for each route or topic. Within the strategic priorities, the top priorities are identified. These are recommended interventions that address multiple Conditional Outputs and are expected to deliver a step-change in rail service for Hertfordshire. It should be noted that some topics do not have top priorities as they have a series of interventions, none of which individually meet multiple Conditional Outputs.
2.1 Implementing the Strategy The top priorities identified in this Strategy will be developed as a priority to feed into the main rail industry processes, such as Network Rail Route Study consultations, DfT’s HLOS (Higher Level Output Specification) process, and franchise consultations and renewals. Alongside this process the remainder of the strategic priorities will also be progressed with relevant stakeholders. There is excellent stakeholder interest and support for this Strategy from both within the county and the rail industry, and this will be harnessed by the county council and its partners to deliver a successful rail strategy that delivers the development objectives for the county.
Agenda Pack 166 of 353 6
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
2.1.1. Hertfordshire Transport Vision The County Council adopted its existing Local Transport Plan (LTP3) in April 2011. However, the national context for transport and planning has changed considerably since then. The delivery of economic growth, in the form of housing and jobs, is much higher on the national Government’s agenda, and the national and transport planning context has evolved significantly to reflect this. In transport delivery terms, it is approaching a crossroads. By 2020, the existing Local Transport Plan will be largely delivered and so it was necessary to plan for the next generation of transport improvements to support future prosperity and growth. This has been done by developing a long-term Transport Vision for LTP4. This work has begun to highlight the issues and main priorities in terms of movement, and rail infrastructure is likely to be key in helping to address these. Once the outcomes of the Vision work are complete it is probable that the Rail Strategy will require revisiting to ensure that it aligns with the long term Vision and includes any new rail-related priorities.
Agenda Pack 167 of 353 7
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
Figure 2.1: Development Objectives for Rail in Hertfordshire
Agenda Pack 168 of 353 8
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
2.2 Rail Industry Timescales A key element in developing the Rail Strategy is understanding the rail industry timescales for development of initiatives. A summary of the timescales in the industry is shown in Figure 2.2. It is important to understand that rail industry planning timescales are long. Each Control Period (the period over which the Office of Rail Regulation sets regulatory targets, income and costs for Network Rail) lasts five years. Whilst this is good for the industry, in that it can plan with some certainty of funding for that period, it means that new infrastructure schemes often have to be planned with more than five year lead times. For example, the plans for Control Period 5 (2014-2019) are now fixed, so any new infrastructure schemes will likely have to be implemented in Control Period 6 (2019-2024). Planning for this period starts with the Planning Oversight Group’s Initial Industry Plan to be delivered in 2016 and the Department for Transport’s High Level Output Specification (HLOS), which is expected to be published in 2017. Consultation and negotiations to inform the HLOS have already started, for example with the publication of Network Rail’s Route Studies. There are opportunities to progress smaller schemes and service improvements through the franchise renewal processes, of which a number will occur in Hertfordshire before the end of the current Control Period, for example East Anglia and West Midland. Major projects will also have a significant impact on the county, particularly over the next 10-20 years, with schemes such as Crossrail 1 and HS2, and potentially Crossrail 2, all scheduled to be implemented in this timescale.
Agenda Pack 169 of 353 9
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
Figure 2.2: Rail Industry Timescales
Agenda Pack 170 of 353 10
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
3. Key Issues and Themes This section highlights the key issues and themes raised during the baselining element of the study. These were identified through a combination of desk-based analysis and stakeholder consultation. The key elements of the evidence are included in Chapter 4 (The Rail Strategy for Hertfordshire) of this report. The themes are: rail plays a very important role in the Hertfordshire economy - rail mode share in Hertfordshire is 16% for work trips, over 60,000 people commute out of the county by rail each day, with the majority (96%) commuting to London (for which rail mode share is 51%). Rail also brings over 12,000 workers into the county, with about 75% of these coming from Greater London; a few key rail stations in the county are dominant, particularly for travel to London - the top 10% of stations (St Albans City, Watford Junction, Stevenage, Elstree & Borehamwood, and Harpenden) account for 39% of all rail demand in Hertfordshire; there is a lack of good orbital (east-west) rail links in Hertfordshire - orbital road links (e.g. M25, A414) are congested and forecast to get worse. The rail network is largely radial (to and from London) meaning there are connectivity gaps; there are issues with station and train facilities that affect the passenger experience of rail in the county - satisfaction is below the south east average for many train facilities, particularly on Greater Anglia and Thameslink / Great Northern services (e.g. staff availability and helpfulness, on-train information, and upkeep and repair of trains). There are also gaps in provision of accessible facilities at some of the most used stations; rail is an important component of the Hertfordshire transport network in enabling movement and access - congestion on the Hertfordshire road network is a significant issue, particularly on key corridors such as the A1(M), and many strategic roads are expected to be over capacity by 2031, causing longer and more unreliable journey times; rail will need to accommodate increased travel demand in future - Hertfordshire’s population is projected to grow by 18% to 2031 (an additional 203,000 people). Employment is expected to grow by 15% (over 80,000 new jobs). In addition, growth in neighbouring areas, particularly London, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire, will increase demand for rail travel through Hertfordshire; a number of Hertfordshire’s rail lines are forecast to be over capacity by 2031 - Midland Main Line long distance services to St Pancras are forecast to be at 133% of capacity by 2031, with West Coast Main Line suburban services at 107%, Great Northern services to Moorgate at 104%, and Chiltern services to Marylebone at 100%; and
Agenda Pack 171 of 353 11
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
a number of rail projects are committed or planned that will transform rail travel in the region in the next 10-15 years - major projects, such as the Thameslink Programme, Crossrail, HS2 and potentially Crossrail 2, will provide significant changes to the capacity available and journey opportunities on key services to and from Hertfordshire. Overarching themes that occur over a number of lines include: capacity constraints and bottlenecks on lines (for example short platform lengths on the WAML and joint running on the London to Aylesbury Line); peak time overcrowding on key services (for example on Great Northern services from Welwyn Garden City and Thameslink services from St Albans); strong projected population, employment and housing growth (for example a 20% increase in population in Watford to 2031 and a 23% increase in jobs in St Albans); low frequencies and slow journey times from key stations (for example 6tph from Hatfield to London and 43 minutes from Hertford North to London); gaps in suburban and long distance provision (for example poor connectivity from Watford to local destinations and concern about the long distance level of service at Stevenage); and poor connectivity between key Hertfordshire towns (for example east to west links such as between St Albans and Bishops Stortford). A number of committed projects, for example the Thameslink Programme, the Inter City Express Programme, the West Anglia Main Line short-term capacity improvements, and GTR’s Hertford Loop improvements, will contribute to overcome some of these issues, and the rail strategy is intended to provide a basis for Hertfordshire to influence these and other schemes. It should be noted that forecasts for housing and employment growth were correct at the time of going to press and will be subject to review and Local Plan adoption to ensure that the most up to date evidence is used in relevant lobbying.
Agenda Pack 172 of 353 12
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
Figure 3.1: Rail corridors passing through Hertfordshire
Agenda Pack 173 of 353 13
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
4 The Rail Strategy for Hertfordshire This chapter presents the rail strategy for Hertfordshire. It provides details of the recommended strategies for each route and topic, which comprise a series of committed, planned and other interventions that address the relevant conditional outputs identified through the baseline analysis. Importantly, the Strategy recognises that the county will benefit from significant investment in rail enhancements in the next 5-10 years, through major projects such as the Thameslink programme, IEP and Crossrail. It will also benefit from utilising capacity on the existing railway network released by the opening of HS2.
The Strategy is set out in the following sections: 4.1 West Anglia Main Line 4.2 East Coast Main Line 4.3 Midland Main Line 4.4 West Coast Main Line 4.5 London to Aylesbury Corridor 4.6 Orbital Movements 4.7 Access to International Airports 4.8 HS2 Opportunities 4.9 Station Facilities 4.10 Freight
Agenda Pack 174 of 353 14
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
4.1 West Anglia Main Line The rail lines covered under the West Anglia Main Line strategy area are shown in Figure 4.1. The West Anglia Main Line links London Liverpool Street with Cambridge and East Anglia, and also includes the Hertford East Branch to Broxbourne. Figure 4.1: West Anglia Main Line Route Map
4.1.1 The Main Line The development objectives targeted for the West Anglia Main Line are: supporting competitiveness; enabling economic growth; supporting the environment and sustainability; and supporting population growth. The key issues and evidence identified in the baseline analysis and in stakeholder engagement for the West Anglia Main Line are: existing capacity constraints on the line, particularly platforms that cannot accommodate 12-car trains and two-track infrastructure that does not allow fast trains to overtake stopping services; long journey times to London relative to other corridors, for example 38 minutes from Bishop’s Stortford (compared to 24 minutes from Stevenage); capacity issues at Liverpool Street and the importance of Stratford as an alternative and as a destination for employment and leisure in its own right,
Agenda Pack 175 of 353 15
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
with the scope to interchange onto Crossrail for Canary Wharf and Central London and connections to City Airport via the DLR; rail growth will be driven by significant housing in Hertfordshire, Essex and Cambridgeshire by 2031 (+15% in Broxbourne, +26% in East Cambridgeshire) and employment growth of 7000 jobs by 2030 in Broxbourne West Anglia services into London Liverpool Street are close to capacity and as a result of this growth are forecast to reach capacity (97%) by 2031; and planned growth at Stansted Airport (from 18m now to 45m passengers per year by 2030) will place additional demands on the rail corridor from outside the county. Given the above issues, the conditional outputs identified for the West Anglia Main Line are to: address constraints to enable capacity increases to accommodate forecast demand; provide sufficient capacity for forecast demand to and from neighbouring growth areas; provide sufficient capacity for forecast demand to London; and improve journey times to London (including Stratford) from all stations including Bishop’s Stortford. The interventions recommended to address these conditional outputs are shown in Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2: West Anglia Main Line Interventions
Agenda Pack 176 of 353 16
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
These interventions are described in more detail below: CP5 enhancements scheme – Committed – CP5 (2014-2019) This committed scheme adds capacity by improving timetabling, rolling stock utilisation and performance, primarily by delivering 4tph in the peak on the Lea Valley Line to Stratford in place of the current 2tph. This is partly achieved by three-tracking certain sections of the line south of Hertfordshire. It provides additional connections to significant employment growth areas in East London such as Stratford and (via DLR) Docklands and South East London. The county council will support these improvements, noting that even with this scheme, core capacity problems on the WAML are expected to remain. Timetable studies would help inform further options that would build on the benefits brought about by these enhancements, see further details below. Train / platform lengthening and extra platforms at Liverpool Street – Planned – CP6 (2019-2024) Following the enhancements scheme in CP5 Network Rail has plans to increase capacity by lengthening platforms to allow for 12-car operation at Cheshunt and Waltham Cross. This scheme should see all WAML high peak services being lengthened to 12-car by the end of 2024 (providing sufficient rolling stock is made available). The implementation of Crossrail 1 in 2019 will divert Shenfield services away from Liverpool Street station, and with some reorganisation of key junctions would allow more WAML services to run into the central London by 2024. These improvements would benefit Hertfordshire stations on the WAML, and should be supported for implementation in CP6. Four-tracking of the West Anglia Main Line – Other (under discussion) – CP7+ (2024 onwards) A long standing aspiration for the WAML is to expand key sections to four tracks (from two / three) to improve journey times by allowing services from Bishops Stortford and Hertford East to run fast from Cheshunt or Broxbourne. This would be achieved by overtaking slower stopping services. Some sections of the route have space for the additional tracks, though this remains a major enhancement project. This would provide additional timetabled services to increase capacity and substantially reduce journey times from key Hertfordshire stations to London. Crossrail 2 - Other (under discussion) – CP7+ (2024 onwards) Crossrail 2 is a proposed new rail route running from Surrey through the centre of London to Hertfordshire in the north. The project is being promoted by TfL, which sees it both as a crucial follow on to Crossrail 1 to relieve capacity pressures in South West London and Surrey, and also as an extension of the Overground network.
The county council supports the proposals for Crossrail 2 services to terminate at Broxbourne. Agenda Pack 177 of 353 17
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
Elsewhere in London conversion of services to Overground operation has delivered very substantial patronage increases, and Crossrail is expected to do the same. In terms of benefits, significant capacity would be released on the WAML by passengers diverting to Crossrail 2 and this is likely to provide the largest benefits for the county in terms of additional capacity into London. Connections will also be enhanced through a host of new destinations in Central London and Surrey. The committed and planned WAML capacity enhancements would be easier to justify as part of a major infrastructure investment project such as Crossrail 2, rather than as individual standalone schemes, and would bring the best potential for a programme of long term capacity enhancements.
Agenda Pack 178 of 353 18
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
4.1.2 Hertford East Branch The Hertford East branch runs from Broxbourne to Hertford East. It does not connect with the Hertford Loop at Hertford North station. There is no direct connection to Stansted going north. The development objectives targeted for the Hertford East are: supporting competitiveness; enabling economic growth; supporting the environment and sustainability; and supporting population growth. The key issues and evidence identified in the baseline analysis and in stakeholder engagement for the Hertford East Branch are: existing capacity constraints caused by platforms that cannot accommodate 12-car trains and a single track section through the station at Ware which limits timetabling flexibility; lower levels of passenger comfort and amenity due to aging trains; poor service frequency relative to other corridors, with services generally only every 30 minutes due to the single track section through Ware Station; very poor journey times to London, for example 51 minutes from Hertford East, compared to other comparably distanced stations; and poorly timetabled connections to Stansted Airport via Broxbourne, and no direct rail access. Given the above issues, the conditional outputs identified for the Hertford East Branch are to: address constraints to enable capacity increases to accommodate forecast demand; enhance journey times from the Hertford East Branch to London; and improve connections and frequencies to Stansted Airport.
Agenda Pack 179 of 353 19
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
The interventions developed to address these conditional outputs are shown in Figure 4.3. Figure 4.3: Hertford East Branch Interventions
These interventions are described in more detail below: CP5 enhancements scheme – Committed – CP5 (2014-2019) This committed scheme will relieve capacity issues by improving timetabling, rolling stock utilisation and performance. The timetable study referred to above (under the Main Line) should be used to identify ways to increase service frequency to 4tph, and to reduce journey times by running at least two of these services semi fast throughout the day. The county council will continue to support these improvements. Train / platform lengthening and extra platforms at Liverpool Street – Planned – CP6 (2019-2024) Following the enhancements scheme in CP5, Network Rail has plans to further increase capacity by lengthening platforms to allow for 12-car operation at Hertford East, Ware, St Margaret’s and Rye House, which the county council will continue to support and press for a firm commitment for implementation in CP6. Double track at Ware Station – Other (possible) - CP7+ (2024 onwards) This additional intervention proposes the installation of a second platform at Ware to increase capacity and reduce performance risks by removing the bottleneck and timetable constraint that the current layout imposes on the branch. Station Interventions Improvements to railway stations will be included in detail in a facilities audit to be completed in 2017. However, the strategy is also supportive in principle of the following proposals: New stations at Turnford and Park Plaza, as promoted by Broxbourne Borough Council. Agenda Pack 180 of 353 20
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
4.1.3 West Anglia Main Line Strategic Priorities The strategic priorities identified for the West Anglia Main Line are presented below: Short term: Continue to press for service improvements from the committed CP5 enhancements to reduce journey times and increase frequencies. Short to medium term: Develop options to further improve services through a timetable study to capitalise on planned investment. Increase line capacity by continuing to press for planned train and platform lengthening, and provision of extra platforms released by Crossrail 1 at London Liverpool Street before the end of CP6. TOP PRIORITY - Long term: Secure long term capacity and adequacy improvements, including four-tracking of the WAML, through support for the Crossrail 2 project and its extension to Broxbourne.
Whilst Crossrail 2 is supported as a top priority scheme, the county council will work to ensure that any negative impacts of the scheme (e.g. level crossing closures and impacts on natural habitat) are minimised.
Agenda Pack 181 of 353 21
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
4.2 East Coast Main Line The rail lines covered under the East Coast Main Line strategy area are shown in Figure 4.4. The corridor includes Great Northern Suburban services from Kings Cross to Welwyn Garden City, Hitchin, Letchworth Garden City, Baldock and Royston (en route to Peterborough, Cambridge and Kings Lynn), ECML Long Distance services to Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh, and the Hertford Loop services from Moorgate to Hertford North, Stevenage and Letchworth Garden City. Great Northern Suburban services will be converted to operate via the Thameslink route to destinations in Kent, Sussex and Surrey from 2018. Figure 4.4: East Coast Main Line Route Map
4.2.1 East Coast Main Line Long Distance The development objectives targeted for the East Coast Main Line Long Distance are: supporting competitiveness; enabling economic growth; and supporting the environment and sustainability. The key issues and evidence identified in the baseline analysis and in stakeholder engagement for the East Coast Main Line Long Distance are: concern about possible reduction of long distance service calls at Stevenage because of timetable pressures – Stevenage is an economic hub with Agenda Pack 182 of 353 22
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
significant employment growth planned and requires long distance rail connections that reflect this; concern about the condition of Stevenage Station, in particular the impression it gives to visitors as the gateway to the county from long distance services. Given the above issues, the conditional outputs identified for the East Coast Main Line Long Distance are to: maintain or improve the level of service for long distance services and improve the range of directly-served destinations including but not limited to Newcastle, Edinburgh, Durham, York and Leeds. The interventions developed to address these conditional outputs are shown in Figure 4.5. Figure 4.5: East Coast Mainline Long Distance Interventions
These interventions are described in more detail below: New East Coast Franchise –Delivered – CP5 (2014-2019) The new East Coast franchise was awarded to Stagecoach-Virgin (InterCity Railways) on 1st March 2015. More services have been promised, but not from Stevenage. A timetable review will take place in 2019/20 and the current position is to maintain the existing 2tph to the north, with 1tph to Newcastle and the other in alternate hours running to Leeds or Lincoln. However, this is not a committed proposal and there remains the risk that calls at Stevenage will be reduced in favour of running more fast trains. The county council will continue to lobby to maintain or improve the level of long distance stops at Stevenage and to develop Stevenage as a hub station for both local and long distance services, supporting the town’s stature in the county and increasing the justification for station calls. It will also lobby to improve connectivity to Peterborough for long distance services. InterCity Express Programme (IEP) – Committed – CP5 (2014-2019) IEP replaces the existing intercity rolling stock with new electric and hybrid trains. It delivers increased capacity with an additional 94 seats per train which represents a 16% increase on long distance services. It does not deliver increased route capacity. It should also provide higher quality trains with greater Agenda Pack 183 of 353 23
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel user satisfaction, which will lead to fewer delays due to more reliable trains. While IEP delivers some benefits in terms of additional seat capacity, this project does not deliver more connections from Stevenage to the north, although there may be an opportunity to influence the timetable. Signalling enhancements (European Rail Traffic Management System – ERTMS) – Committed – CP5 (2014-2019)–CP6 (2019-2024) Network Rail is installing cab signalling (ERTMS) on the ECML as a committed renewal project (with full implementation between Kings Cross and Doncaster by 2020). This should provide some increased capacity by allowing more trains to run on the tracks. It is expected to relieve key capacity constraints such as the Welwyn Viaduct and lead to improved reliability and reduced maintenance costs. The county council will press Network Rail to ensure that the ERTMS project maximises the ability of long distance services to call at Stevenage. This is a key opportunity to address the concerns over long distance calls. HS2 Phase 2 (to Manchester and Leeds) released capacity – Planned (under discussion) – CP7+ (2024 onwards) HS2 Phase 2 (due for implementation in 2033) will deliver a new high speed route to Leeds with services running on to the classic network to York, Newcastle and stations in Scotland.
Following this, ECML services would be reorganised and it is anticipated that long distance trains would then be able to call more frequently at Stevenage. For this reason the county council will continue to make the case for better long distance connections from Stevenage on the ECML. The potential exists to
Agenda Pack 184 of 353 24
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel maintain direct connections to Leeds and York and provide new direct connections to Lincoln, Newcastle and Edinburgh. Stevenage Station The county council supports the proposals by Stevenage First to develop a new station building at Stevenage which will be integrated into a wider town centre redevelopment. This will enable and encourage economic development by improving the passenger experience and connectivity, and enhancing the perception of the town given to visitors.
4.2.2 Great Northern Suburban (including Hitchin to Cambridge) The development objectives targeted for the East Coast Main Line Great Northern Suburban are: supporting competitiveness; enabling economic growth; supporting the environment and sustainability; and supporting population growth. The key issues and evidence identified in the baseline analysis and in stakeholder engagement for the East Coast Main Line Great Northern Suburban are: there are a number of capacity constraints on the line; overcrowding on services from Welwyn Garden City; relatively low service frequencies at some stations compared to similar size stations in Hertfordshire, for example 6tph from Hatfield to London (compared to 10+ at St Albans, Harpenden, Stevenage); low service frequencies to Cambridge from across the county; access to the ECML from the Hitchin to Cambridge Line is seen as a key issue for Cambridgeshire; expected strong growth in rail driven by heavy congestion on the A1(M), a large and growing population centre at Stevenage, +27% employment growth in Welwyn Hatfield by 2031 and +13% in Stevenage; and as a result of this growth demand to Moorgate is forecast to be 104% of capacity by 2031. Given the above issues, the conditional outputs identified for the East Coast Main Line Great Northern Suburban are to: address constraints to enable capacity increases to accommodate forecast demand; provide sufficient capacity for forecast demand at Welwyn Garden City; provide sufficient capacity for forecast demand at local employment growth areas; Agenda Pack 185 of 353 25
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
provide sufficient capacity for forecast demand to London; increase frequencies to London from Hatfield and Potters Bar; provide sufficient capacity for forecast demand on the Hitchin to Cambridge Line; and ensure that there is an adequate level of service on the Hitchin to Cambridge Line. The interventions developed to address these conditional outputs are shown in Figure 4.6. Figure 4.6: East Coast Mainline Great Northern Suburban Interventions
These interventions are described in more detail below: Thameslink Programme (2018) – Committed – CP5 (2014-2019) The Thameslink Programme is committed and has had a phased delivery with the final phase, Key Output 2, due to be fully delivered in December 2018. This will lead to significantly increased capacity through longer and higher capacity rolling stock with 8 or 12 coaches. It will also provide increased frequencies (20 services from Stevenage to London 0700-0959, currently 14) and improved connections (extended to City Thameslink, London Bridge, Kent, Sussex and Surrey).
Agenda Pack 186 of 353 26
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
The Thameslink project will also support development of the Stevenage Hub by increasing services / connections at the station. The county council will continue to strongly support implementation of this project. Signalling enhancements (European Rail Traffic Management System - ERTMS) – Committed – CP5 (2014-2019) – CP6 (2019-2024) Network Rail is installing cab signalling (ERTMS) on the ECML as a committed renewal project. This may provide some increased capacity by allowing more trains to run on the tracks. This could help to relieve key capacity constraints such as the Welwyn Viaduct and will lead to improved reliability and reduced maintenance costs. This increase in capacity will benefit Great Northern as well as long distance services. Agenda Pack 187 of 353 27
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
Improve Semi-fast Thameslink Services – Other – CP6 (2019 -2024) – CP7+ (2024 onwards) This additional proposed intervention would deliver further increased frequencies at key stations such as Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City, based on anticipated passenger volume growth after introduction of the main service upgrade in 2018. The county council will press for this and the inclusion of an improved service specification on the tender documents for the new Thameslink franchise, which will start in 2021, as long as any new services would not be to the detriment of slower services.. While some linespeed increases (through the removal of speed restrictions) and level crossing closures are planned between Hitchin and Cambridge the main improvement on this line (the Hitchin flyover) has already been delivered, and there are only modest further gains to be delivered. No further interventions for Hitchin-Cambridge are therefore being recommended in this Strategy. HS2 Phase 2 (to Manchester and Leeds) released capacity – Planned (under discussion) – CP7+ (2024 onwards) HS2 Phase 2 (due for implementation in 2033) will deliver a new high speed route to Leeds with services running on to the classic network to York, Newcastle and stations in Scotland. Following this, ECML long distance services would be reorganised and it is anticipated that as well as additional calls being potentially offered at Stevenage, Great Northern Services could also benefit from released capacity on services to London.
4.2.3. Hertford Loop The development objectives targeted for the Hertford Loop are: supporting competitiveness; enabling economic growth; supporting the environment and sustainability; and supporting population growth. The key issues and evidence identified in the baseline analysis and in stakeholder engagement for the East Coast Main Line Hertford Loop are: capacity constraints because of the two track railway on this route, and further disruptions caused by freight, all of which uses the Hertford Loop as an alternative to the ECML, and main line passenger train diversions when the ECML is blocked between Stevenage and Bounds Green; slower journey times to London, for example 43 minutes from Hertford North, than from comparable stations such as Welwyn Garden City and St Albans (21 and 17 minutes respectively); significant population growth of +18% in East Herts and +15% in Broxbourne by 2031; and as a result of this growth there is forecast overcrowding of up to 104% into London by 2031. Agenda Pack 188 of 353 28
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
Given the above issues, the conditional outputs identified for the East Coast Main Line Great Hertford Loop are to: address constraints to enable capacity increases to accommodate forecast demand; provide sufficient capacity for forecast demand to London; provide sufficient capacity for forecast demand to Moorgate on the Hertford Loop; and reduce journey times to London from stations such as Hertford North and Cuffley. The interventions developed to address these conditional outputs are shown in Figure 4.7. Figure 4.7: East Coast Mainline Hertford Loop Interventions
These interventions are described in more detail below: Updated rolling stock and timetable alterations (2018) – Committed – CP5 (2014-2019) Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR - the new Thameslink franchisee) has committed to provide new rolling stock for the Hertford Loop to replace the current life expired fleet. This will provide increased capacity and be of a higher quality. The proposal is for 25 new 6-carriage trains to be introduced by 2019. GTR will also deliver increased peak frequencies to Moorgate benefiting from the 6-tracking between Alexandra Palace and Finsbury Park as well as 2tph all day extended from Hertford North to Stevenage – currently only 1 train per hour off peak makes this journey (2tph in the peak). This delivers better main line connections to the north from Hertford. The county council support these improvements. Agenda Pack 189 of 353 29
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
Stevenage turnback platform – Committed – CP6 (2019-2024) Related to the previous scheme, the committed Stevenage turnback platform will deliver improved performance and reliability of Hertford Loop services by making them independent of the ECML, and allow two Hertford loop trains per hour to be extended to Stevenage for the whole day. As a result no Hertford Loop services will operate north of Stevenage (currently some run on to Letchworth Garden City). The county council will lobby to ensure connections at Stevenage will be improved to minimise interchange time for passengers from the Hertford Loop with onward journeys to Letchworth Garden City and beyond. Benefits include the provision of additional peak capacity into Kings Cross and Moorgate and the creation of better links between Hertford and ECML destinations such as Peterborough, Leeds and Newcastle. The turnback platform will also help to develop the role of Stevenage as a hub station through the provision of new connecting services. The county council therefore supports this scheme as a key improvement to the ECML in the county. Diversion planning and freight review – Other – CP5 (2014-2019) Currently, all ECML freight services run via the Hertford Loop to avoid the capacity constraints on the ECML over the Welwyn viaduct. In times of operational disruption on the main line passenger services are diverted via Hertford North as well. This proposed intervention is for a more robust plan to review freight services and how they operate on the Hertford Loop, to encourage Freight Operating Companies (FOCs) to keep these services out of the peak period to maximise capacity for passenger services. The county council is committed to encouraging freight to move by rail, and will look at ways in which both policy objectives can be achieved. The county council will also institute a review of how passenger services are diverted from the ECML on to the Hertford Loop and engage with Network Rail and TOCs to examine ways in which the consequent disruption of the normal passenger service can be minimised. Journey time and capacity improvements (service frequencies and infrastructure) The Hertford Loop Metro - – Other) To build on the Stevenage turnback platform, this intervention is additional to committed or planned industry schemes. It aims to provide centre turnback platforms at Hertford North and Gordon Hill to reduce timetabling conflicts created by terminating services at Hertford North. Currently southbound services from the existing bay platform have to cross over both northbound and southbound lines, limiting other train movements. Centre turnbacks would deliver a higher frequency service with more timetable flexibility reducing journey times and increasing capacity by introducing semi-fast limited stop services on the Hertford Loop. However it should be noted that some stakeholders have indicated that this should not be achieved at the cost of reduced service frequency at stations in the London area.
Agenda Pack 190 of 353 30
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
The improvement would provide a substantially better service from Hertfordshire stations. This improved service could be marketed as the Hertford Loop Metro, and would build on the provision of new rolling stock in 2018. It would aim to deliver TfL Overground standard service (e.g. 4tph with station quality improvements). An early part of this intervention will be to work closely with GTR to conduct an independent timetable study to examine what services could be delivered if the enhanced infrastructure was provided. Station Interventions Improvements to railway stations will be included in detail in a facilities audit to be completed in 2017. However, the strategy is also supportive in principle of the following proposals: A new station in south Stevenage, as promoted by Stevenage Borough Council.
4.2.4 East Coast Main Line Strategic Priorities Significant investment in committed schemes, including Thameslink and GTR’s rolling stock replacement programme, already provides the potential for a step- change in capacity and frequencies on GN suburban and Hertford Loop, with particular benefit for areas with high forecast population and employment growth such as Welwyn Garden City. Continuing engagement with GTR and Network Rail is essential to ensure that the benefits to Hertfordshire are delivered. The strategic priorities identified for the East Coast Main Line are presented below: TOP PRIORITY - Medium term: secure better long distance connections from Stevenage to the north from the new InterCity franchise and progress comprehensive development of Stevenage Transport Hub to support Stevenage’s increasing importance as a growing population and employment centre, and its enhanced role as an interchange hub. TOP PRIORITY - Long term: further build on the GTR plans by promoting service improvements (capacity, frequency, speed) through development of ‘Hertford Loop Metro’ to take advantage of the new Stevenage turnback platforms and new rolling stock, and develop Stevenage as a transport hub. Long term: HS2 Phase 2 will relieve capacity pressure on the ECML from 2033 onwards. The county council will develop plans and lobby for increased long distance stops at Stevenage and increased local service frequency and capacity at other key stations.
Agenda Pack 191 of 353 31
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
4.3 Midland Main Line The route covered under the Midland Main Line strategy area is shown in Figure 4.8. The Midland Main Line includes: Thameslink Suburban services from Bedford, Luton and St Albans to Gatwick Airport, Brighton, Sevenoaks and other Kent, Sussex and Surrey destinations, which are due to be significantly upgraded in 2018; and East Midlands Trains Long Distance services from St Pancras to Corby, Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield. Figure 4.8: Midland Main Line Route Map
4.3.1 Midland Main Line East Midlands Long Distance The development objectives targeted for the Midland Main Line East Midlands Long Distance are: supporting competitiveness; enabling economic growth; and supporting the environment and sustainability. The key issues and evidence identified in the baseline analysis and in stakeholder engagement for the Midland Main Line East Midlands Long Distance are: the lack of connections to the Midlands and North from Hertfordshire in this corridor, for example no East Midlands Trains services currently stop at
Agenda Pack 192 of 353 32
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
Hertfordshire stations (instead Luton and Luton Airport Parkway are served); and forecast overcrowding of up to 133% on GTR services to London St Pancras by 2031. Given the above issues, the conditional outputs identified for the Midland Main Line East Midlands Long Distance are to: improve long distance connectivity to/from Luton to provide connections to the Midlands (such as to Nottingham, Leicester and Sheffield) / North; and provide sufficient capacity for forecast long distance demand to London. The interventions developed to address these conditional outputs are shown in Figure 4.9. Figure 4.9: Midland Main Line East Midlands Long Distance Interventions
These interventions are described in more detail below: MML improvements (2017-2019) – Committed – CP5 (2014-2019) The Midland Main Line is set to undergo investment that could indirectly impact on Hertfordshire by releasing potential capacity on suburban services due to passengers transferring to long distance services including via: Electrification north of Bedford leading to faster long distance services for the East Midlands trains with the introduction of 11 x 23m trains (currently 5/7 x 23m). Linespeed enhancements on sections of the route delivering further reductions in main line journey times, north of Bedford. Capacity enhancements (including restoration of some of the former four track sections north of Bedford) potentially allowing more through running of new electric services. As discussed above the combined impact of these improvements on Hertfordshire could be a release of some capacity on suburban services through passengers transferring to long distance services.
Agenda Pack 193 of 353 33
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
Long distance stops at St Albans Due to strong competition from existing stops at Luton, Luton Airport Parkway and Bedford, the addition of InterCity stops at St Albans would require a reduction in stops elsewhere which would be fiercely resisted. Therefore the county council is not proposing to add St Albans to the InterCity network, but instead to seek infrastructure improvements necessary to ensure that InterCity trains could stop at St Albans during times of disruption . HS2 Phase 2 (to Manchester and Leeds) released capacity – Planned (under discussion) – CP7+ (2024 onwards) If HS2 Phase 2 is delivered as planned by 2033, some high speed long distance services to Nottingham and Sheffield might divert to HS2 (either as direct services or by better connections at Toton), potentially allowing more services to stop at St Albans. Hertfordshire should lobby for this as a local dividend of HS2. This would potentially deliver better direct connections to destinations to the north such as Sheffield, Nottingham and Leicester. While an interim solution might be to call the service to Corby at St Albans, this would be of only limited value as travel to the East Midlands would still require a further change. For this reason the Corby option has not been progressed within this strategy.
4.3.2 Midland Main Line Thameslink Suburban The development objectives targeted for the Midland Main Line Thameslink Suburban are: supporting competitiveness; enabling economic growth; supporting the environment and sustainability; and supporting population growth. The key issues and evidence identified in the baseline analysis and in stakeholder engagement for the Midland Main Line Thameslink Suburban are: crowding impacts on suburban services as a result of overspill from overcrowding on longer distance Thameslink services to Gatwick Airport and Brighton; lower frequencies at some stations, for example 6tph from Elstree & Borehamwood to London compared to >10 at Harpenden and St Albans; road congestion on the M1 motorway; forecast employment growth of +23% in St Albans and +9% in Hertsmere by 2031; and forecast population growth of +18% in St Albans and +20% in Hertsmere by 2031. Given the above issues, the conditional outputs identified for the Midland Main Line Thameslink Suburban are to:
Agenda Pack 194 of 353 34
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
address constraints to enable capacity increases to accommodate forecast demand; provide sufficient capacity for forecast demand at local employment growth areas; and increase frequencies to London from Elstree and Radlett. The interventions developed to address these conditional outputs are shown in Figure 4.10. Figure 4.10: Midland Main Line Thameslink Suburban Interventions
These interventions are described in more detail below: Thameslink Programme (2018) – Committed – CP5 (2014-2019) When fully delivered in 2018 the Thameslink Programme will significantly increase capacity through longer trains (many more at 12 car) and higher capacity rolling stock. It will also deliver increased frequencies (13tph from St Albans to London, currently 10) and improved connections (through extension of existing services to a further 100 stations in Kent, Surrey and Sussex). However, the East Midlands Route Study has acknowledged that there will be standing passengers above the 20 minute journey time threshold from some stations due to the updated rolling stock being designed to carry a higher proportion of standing passengers. This will need to be kept under review to ensure that adequate capacity is provided. The county council will continue to strongly support implementation of this project. Extension of Thameslink services – Other (possible) – CP7+ (2024 onwards) Electrification would allow extension of some Thameslink direct services from Bedford to Wellingborough, Kettering, Corby and potentially beyond. This would help to relieve capacity pressure on long distance services north of Hertfordshire Agenda Pack 195 of 353 35
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel and provide some improvement to connections to the East Midlands and destinations to the North such as Nottingham, Leicester and Sheffield. It would also open up a wider employment catchment for Hertfordshire by providing better transport options for workers from this area. However there is a risk that trains could arrive full at Hertfordshire stations. The county council is supportive of any such proposal subject to detailed capacity analysis being undertaken. HS2 Phase 2 (to Manchester and Leeds) released capacity – Planned (under discussion) – CP7+ (2024 onwards) If HS2 Phase 2 is delivered as planned by 2033, some high speed long distance services to Nottingham and Sheffield might divert to HS2 (either as direct services or by better connections at Toton), potentially allowing more services to stop at St Albans. The county council will support this, as it could deliver increased capacity for suburban services through reducing main line high speed train paths.
Radlett Rail Freight Terminal The proposed new rail freight terminal at Radlett is supported in principle due to its economic development impacts and the promotion of sustainable transport. However, the county council will work to ensure that the increase in freight trains on the Midland Main Line does not have any negative impacts on passenger services.
Station Interventions Improvements to railway stations will be included in detail in a facilities audit to be completed in 2017.
4.3.3 Midland Main Line Strategic Priorities Committed schemes will already provide significant additional capacity, frequencies and connections through full Thameslink service introduction and MML electrification, with new rolling stock and provision for train lengthening. The strategic priorities identified for the Midland Main Line are presented below: TOP PRIORITY - Short term: improve connections to key destinations such as Sheffield and Nottingham following completion of electrification. Medium term: further improve connections to key destinations in the East Midlands and the north following the extension of electrification beyond Sheffield and Nottingham, and support the extension of Thameslink services. Long term: HS2 Phase 2 may relieve capacity pressure from 2033 onwards and new stops at St Albans and increased capacity at other key stations as part of the post HS2 timetable development process will be lobbied for.
Agenda Pack 196 of 353 36
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
4.4 West Coast Main Line The route covered under the West Coast Main Line strategy area is shown in Figure 4.11. This includes Long Distance services from Euston to the West Midlands, Manchester, Liverpool, Preston and Scotland, and suburban services between Euston and Milton Keynes, Northampton, Rugby and the West Midlands. Figure 4.11: West Coast Main Line Route Map
4.4.1 West Coast Main Line Long Distance The development objectives targeted for the West Coast Main Line Long Distance are: supporting competitiveness; enabling economic growth; and supporting the environment and sustainability. The key issues and evidence identified in the baseline analysis and in stakeholder engagement for the West Coast Main Line Long Distance are: the lack of long distance connections to destinations in the north; and the lack of long distance services stopping at Watford Junction in the peak periods and the limited services from Watford Junction to Birmingham in the off peak (only 1tph). The conditional output identified for the West Coast Main Line Long Distance is to: Agenda Pack 197 of 353 37
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
improve connections between Watford Junction and important long distance destinations to the north including Manchester and Liverpool. The interventions developed to address these conditional outputs are shown in Figure 4.12. Figure 4.12: West Coast Main Line Long Distance Interventions
These interventions are described in more detail below: Watford Junction as interchange hub – Other (possible) – CP7+ (2024 onwards) Due to its strategic position on the network and the current and possible interchange opportunities (including Metropolitan Line Extension, the possible extension of Bakerloo line services, the Abbey Line and London Overground) this proposed intervention is to turn Watford Junction into a major interchange hub. This builds on the station’s current interchange possibilities and provides a much better range of passenger facilities. In turn this will provide a greater incentive for TOCs to stop services at the station, and will encourage passenger demand. This focus on the station as a transport hub could also be a catalyst for development around the station to support a sustainable level of housing and jobs growth. Following the HS2 service changes this would make Watford Junction a key interchange between regional and long distance services and deliver increased capacity to cater for the range of destinations that will be served. HS2 Phase 1 (to Birmingham) Released Capacity – Planned (under discussion) - CP7+ (2024 onwards) If HS2 Phase 1 is delivered as planned, long distance services to Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Preston and Glasgow would all be diverted to the new route. Following this WCML services would be reorganised and it is anticipated that trains would then be dedicated to serve more regional stations. This provides the ability for services to respond to demand and stop at Watford Junction to interchange passengers and feed the local area. For this reason the county council will continue to make the case for Watford Junction as a calling point on most of the revised main line services.
Agenda Pack 198 of 353 38
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
4.4.2 West Coast Main Line Suburban The development objectives targeted for the West Coast Main Line Suburban are: supporting competitiveness; enabling economic growth; supporting the environment and sustainability; and supporting population growth. The key issues and evidence identified in the baseline analysis and in stakeholder engagement for the West Coast Main Line Suburban are: capacity constraints caused by the mix of high speed, stopping and freight services, for example most London Midland services have had to run on the slow lines following route modernisation; road congestion on the M1 and M25 motorways; significant growth in the Watford area to 2031, for example +20% population growth in Watford and Three Rivers, and jobs growth of +16% in Watford and +11% in Three Rivers; and as a result of this growth there is forecast overcrowding of up to 107% of capacity into London by 2031. Given the above issues, the conditional outputs identified for the West Coast Main Line Suburban are to: address constraints to enable capacity increases to accommodate forecast demand; provide sufficient capacity for forecast demand for suburban and London Overground services at Watford; and provide sufficient capacity for forecast demand to London.
Agenda Pack 199 of 353 39
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
The interventions developed to address these conditional outputs are shown in Figure 4.13. Figure 4.13: West Coast Main Line Suburban Interventions
These interventions are described in more detail below: Crossrail 1 to WCML link The Crossrail 1 project is under construction, linking Brentwood and Woolwich to Reading via central London. A number of services are currently intended to turn back at Old Oak Common in West London, to avoid overloading the Great Western Main Line. A recent DfT proposal is to extend Crossrail 1 services to the WCML, with stops in Hertfordshire including Watford Junction and Hemel Hempstead. This would reduce capacity issues at Euston while the station is partially closed for HS2 rebuilding works, and also reduce the current underground transfer congestion at Euston station. Other benefits include providing increased connections to a range of destinations in Central London, Kent and Essex, and providing a more productive use for those trains currently turning back at Old Oak Common. This presents a major opportunity to significantly enhance the range of destinations served by Watford Junction, and to build on its current status as a key interchange point between rail corridors. Provision of better links to central London via Crossrail 1 would establish the case for development of the Watford Transport Hub. For these reasons and because, as a scheme of national importance, funding would largely be secured from DfT budgets, the county council strongly support the proposed extension, and provide encouragement to it by developing the plans to create a Watford Transport Hub at Watford Junction station (see below).
Agenda Pack 200 of 353 40
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
Watford Junction as interchange hub – Other (possible) – CP6+ (2019 onwards) Due to its strategic position on the network and significant population and jobs growth in the area, this proposed intervention is to develop Watford Junction station into a major interchange hub by substantially improving the current passenger environment, and potentially relocating the station buildings to provide better modal interchange facilities. It is vital that the station is improved to accommodate increased passenger activity, as the current station cannot continue to cater for continued growth and additional lines into Watford without some form of station intervention, as highlighted in an ongoing capacity study being conducted by Network Rail. These improvements would make Watford Junction a key interchange between local, regional and long distance rail services and bus and coach services, and deliver increased capacity to cater for the range of destinations that will be served. The objective would be to make Watford Junction a destination of choice for passengers wishing to change (in much the same way as Network Rail and Reading Borough Council have transformed Reading station). HS2 Phase 1 (to Birmingham) Released Capacity – Planned (under discussion) – CP7+ (2024 onwards) If HS2 Phase 1 is delivered as planned there will be increased capacity through service enhancements from Hertfordshire stations to Euston (e.g. 8tph from Berkhamsted (currently 4tph) and 6tph from Hemel Hempstead (currently 4tph) using capacity released by the transfer of long distance services to HS2. However, this is dependent on capacity enhancements within Watford Junction station as highlighted in an ongoing capacity study being carried out by Network Rail. For this reason the county council will lobby to ensure the best use is made of the released capacity to serve Hertfordshire stations.
Station Interventions Improvements to railway stations will be included in detail in a facilities audit to be completed in 2017. However, the strategy is also supportive in principle of the following proposals: A major upgrade to Watford Junction station, as promoted by Watford Council in conjunction with wider regeneration; Options for Hemel Hempstead station, as promoted by Dacorum Borough Council in conjunction with wider regeneration.
Agenda Pack 201 of 353 41
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
4.4.3 West Coast Main Line Strategic Priorities The strategic priorities identified for the West Coast Main Line are presented below: TOP PRIORITY - Short term: promote and endorse the case for extension of Crossrail 1 services to the West Coast Main Line, to build the status of Watford Junction as an Interchange Hub, and delivering better through journey access to central London. Medium term: Develop plans with Network Rail for the longer term redevelopment of Watford Junction into a major interchange hub. Lobby for most regional long distance services to stop at Watford after the introduction of HS2 Phase 1, by offering better interchange facilities for local, Crossrail and LUL services to central London.
Agenda Pack 202 of 353 42
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
4.5 London to Aylesbury Corridor The rail lines covered under the London to Aylesbury Line strategy area are shown in Figure 4.14. This includes the Chiltern line from Marylebone to Aylesbury, Oxford (from 2016), Banbury and Birmingham, and London Underground Services from Aldgate and Baker Street to Amersham, and from 2018 the Metropolitan Line Extension to Watford Junction. Overground services run from Euston to Watford Junction (via the ‘DC Lines’), and this line is currently also served, as far as Harrow, by LUL Bakerloo line services. Figure 4.14: London to Aylesbury Line Route Map
4.5.1 Chiltern Services Chiltern services only call at two stations in Hertfordshire: Chorleywood and Rickmansworth. The development objectives targeted for the London to Aylesbury Line Chiltern Services are: supporting competitiveness; enabling economic growth; supporting the environment and sustainability; and supporting population growth Agenda Pack 203 of 353 43
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
The key issues and evidence identified in the baseline analysis and in stakeholder engagement for the London to Aylesbury Line Chiltern Service are: capacity constraints caused by joint running on a double track section with London Underground services and short platforms that cannot accommodate 9-car trains; poor local connections between Watford and Chorleywood and stations to the north; forecast population growth in Aylesbury of +19% by 2031; and as a result of this growth there is forecast overcrowding into London Marylebone of up to 100% by 2031, with a capacity gap of 1200 seats. Given the above issues, the conditional outputs identified for the London to Aylesbury Line Chiltern Services are to: address constraints to enable capacity increases to accommodate forecast demand; and provide sufficient capacity for forecast demand to London.
The interventions developed to address these conditional outputs are shown in Figure 4.15. Figure 4.15: London to Aylesbury Line Chiltern Interventions
These interventions are described in more detail below: Longer trains and higher capacity rolling stock – Other (possible) – CP6 (2019 -2024) This proposed intervention for longer trains and higher capacity rolling stock could be specified as part of the new Chiltern franchise requirement in 2021. This would deliver increased capacity on the line with no additional services required. The county council will start discussions with DfT (and the incumbent TOC) to identify what should be included in the new tender as a firm contractual requirement. Chiltern Aylesbury to Watford service – Other (possible) – CP6 (2019 -2024)
Agenda Pack 204 of 353 44
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
A new Chiltern heavy rail diesel service could be run between Aylesbury and Watford with the delivery of the Croxley Rail Link. The additional infrastructure for this service already exists in the form of the Amersham Chord, and could be upgraded at minimal cost. This would deliver new direct destinations from Watford including Amersham, Wendover, Stoke Mandeville and Aylesbury, and enhance the status of Watford Junction as an interchange hub. A timetable review to identify available capacity north of Moor Park would be required to outline the sort of service that could be offered within the existing route capacity and the LUL Metropolitan Line Extension service specification.
4.5.2 Metropolitan Line Extension and Underground/Overground Services London Underground Metropolitan Line services currently run into their own station in Watford. By 2020 the Metropolitan Line Extension should divert some or all of these services to Watford Junction via Watford High Street station. This will provide much better connections, and enhance the status of Watford Junction station as an interchange hub. The development objectives targeted for the London to Aylesbury Line Croxley Rail Link & London Underground Service are: supporting competitiveness; enabling economic growth; supporting the environment and sustainability; and supporting population growth. The key issues and evidence identified in the baseline analysis and in stakeholder engagement for the London to Aylesbury Line are: poor local connections from Watford, for example to Amersham. The conditional output identified for the London to Aylesbury Line Croxley Rail Link & London Underground Service is to: improve connections between Watford and local destinations such as Amersham or Chesham.
Agenda Pack 205 of 353 45
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
The interventions developed to address these conditional outputs are shown in Figure 4.16. Figure 4.16: London to Aylesbury Corridor Interventions
These interventions are described in more detail below: Metropolitan Line Extension (2020) – Committed – CP5 (2014-2019) When fully delivered in 2020 the Metropolitan Line Extension will deliver increased regional connections to the North and an alternative route to North West and Central London with up to 6tph. It also provides improved east-west public transport connections for Watford and Croxley Green, capacity alleviation at Euston through the diversion of some passengers to Baker Street and it will enhance Watford Junction’s status as a key interchange hub. It is likely to be very heavily used for passengers travelling to and from major events at Wembley Stadium. The county council continue to support the delivery of this important scheme. Amersham Chord – Other (possible) – CP6 (2019 -2024) This proposed intervention is for the use of an existing chord to run a new direct electric service to Amersham via Rickmansworth. The electrified infrastructure for this service already exists, and could be upgraded at minimal cost. As outlined above this would deliver new direct destinations from Watford including to Amersham, Wendover, Stoke Mandeville and Aylesbury, and enhance the status of Watford Junction as an interchange hub. Bakerloo Line/Overground enhancements – Planned – CP7+ (2024 onwards) The re-introduction of Bakerloo line services from Harrow to Watford Junction by 2026 (they were withdrawn in 1982) is currently being considered by TfL, and would, if delivered, ease capacity constraints on WCML suburban services by providing more services and give better access to regional centres. It would also provide increased connections from Watford Junction to destinations in Central London as well as a considerable frequency uplift and additional through services from Bushey and Carpenders Park. Six services per hour could be offered in place of the current 3tph, with no infrastructure work needed other than reinstatement of the fourth rail equipment. However, TfL have stated that the extension of the Bakerloo line north of Harrow to Watford is an upgrade that is unlikely to have a good business case because
Agenda Pack 206 of 353 46
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
demand levels are relatively low on the route section served. A more economical solution, in their view, would be to increase the frequency of the Overground service on this route to 4 tph, which TfL is currently investigating. Watford Junction as interchange hub – Other – CP7+ (2024 onwards) Due to its strategic position on the network and significant local growth forecast, this proposed intervention is to turn Watford Junction into a major interchange hub post-HS2 to exploit released capacity and main line service stops. This would make Watford Junction a key interchange between regional and long distance services and deliver increased capacity to cater for the range of destinations that will be served.
Station Interventions Improvements to railway stations will be included in detail in a facilities audit to be completed in 2017.
4.5.3 London to Aylesbury Corridor Strategic Priorities The strategic priorities identified for the London to Aylesbury Line are presented below: TOP PRIORITY - Short term: Continue to promote the implementation of the Metropolitan Line Extension project to deliver additional capacity and enhanced access to Watford town centre and the Watford Interchange Hub. Medium term: To secure capacity improvements, the county council will work with DfT to secure commitments for the inclusion of longer trains and higher capacity rolling stock in the next Chiltern franchise (2021). Medium term: To improve local connections and exploit Watford growth hub, develop plans for a future Aylesbury-Watford Chiltern diesel service via a reinstated Amersham Chord, which would maximise journey opportunities to the north of Watford. Medium term: To improve local connections and exploit the potential for the Watford Interchange hub, the county council will also press TfL to use the Amersham chord to deliver direct services from Watford to Amersham via London Underground on the Croxley Rail Link. and also improve service frequency either via the extension of the Bakerloo Line or increasing the frequency of Overground services.
Agenda Pack 207 of 353 47
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
4.6 Orbital Movement The route covered under the Orbital (East-West) Movement strategy area is shown in Figure 4.17. This includes the Abbey Line from Watford Junction to St Albans Abbey, and Other Orbital Movements which are currently not catered for. While there were other heavy rail routes in the past which ran broadly east-west, many have closed and a lot have been converted to longer distance cycle routes. Some redevelopment has occurred on the alignments. A map showing these disused rail lines can be found in Appendix B. Figure 4.17: Orbital (East-West) Movement Route Map
4.6.1 Abbey Line The Abbey line is a single track branch line, electrified in 1988, and operated with a captive train set independent of main line operations. An option to convert the line to light rail operation was investigated in co-operation with DfT in 2013. This concluded that due to various constraints it was not possible to further pursue this option at that time The development objectives targeted for the Orbital (East-West Movement) Abbey Line are: supporting competitiveness; enabling economic growth; supporting the environment and sustainability; and supporting population growth. The key issues and evidence identified in the baseline analysis and in stakeholder engagement for the Orbital (East-West Movement) Abbey Line are:
Agenda Pack 208 of 353 48
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
physical constraints on the line e.g. single line with no passing loop; the poor service frequency, which does not connect with main line services (because of route constraints the train service runs at asymmetric times of every 45 minutes until 10pm); the lack of through services, forcing passengers to change at Watford Junction and St Albans; and significant underutilisation (the six branch stations are in the eight least used stations in the county). Given the above issues, the conditional outputs identified for the Orbital (East- West Movement) Abbey Line are to: address physical constraints on the line; improve connectivity to London Euston via Watford Junction and London St Pancras via St Albans City and encourage increased use of the Abbey Line to help accommodate population growth. The interventions developed to address these conditional outputs are shown in Figure 4.18. A longer term vision for the Abbey Line, including possible options to address wider east-west movements in the county, will be considered in the LTP4 Vision. Figure 4.18: Orbital (East-West Movement) Abbey Line Interventions
These interventions are described in more detail below: Later running and revised stopping patterns – Other (possible) – CP5 (2014-2019) Services cannot currently run through to London due to a lack of available paths. This means the short term focus needs to be on other possible enhancements such as the provision of later running services (beyond 10pm) to enhance usefulness and the introduction of ‘skip-stop’ services to enable enhanced frequencies and connectivity from key stations (closing three stations would allow the introduction of a 30 minute interval service).
Agenda Pack 209 of 353 49
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
Passing loop at Bricket Wood to increase services – Other (possible) – CP7+ (2019 -2024) Most long term rail-based solutions for the line would require the addition of a passing loop to increase capacity by allowing a 30 minute interval service (currently 1 every 45 minutes) on clockface timings. This would significantly improve connections and produce a memorable timetable. However, it is unlikely to be considered by funders as a priority, as it would require provision of two train sets and train crew in place of the current one, making it difficult to achieve a favourable business case.
4.6.2 Other Orbital Movements A number of additional east-west links currently exist in the county in the form of rail alignments that have been converted to long distance cycle routes, with some development having taken place on these routes. The potential for the reintroduction of these links, or the establishment of new links, and the technology which should be used, is at present unclear. Much work needs to be done, including through the LTP4 Vision work, to establish whether sufficient demand exists or can be generated by new routes. However the creation of orbital routes remains a strong priority for the county to overcome current weaknesses in transport infrastructure, including congestion on orbital routes and key growth expected along these corridors. The development objectives targeted for the Orbital (East-West Movement): Other Movements are: supporting competitiveness; enabling economic growth; supporting the environment and sustainability; and supporting population growth. The key issues and evidence identified in the baseline analysis and in stakeholder engagement for the Orbital (East-West Movement): Other Movements are: the lack of wider east-west rail travel opportunities, for example Stevenage to Watford takes a minimum of 64 minutes by rail travelling via London Kings Cross and Euston, as opposed to 38 minutes by car – assuming limited congestion; and road congestion (including but not limited to the M25, A1(M), A414), particularly through towns. There are east-west accessibility gaps (no direct rail services) around London and the South East including: Great Western Line to Reading, Oxford and other locations; c2c services from Fenchurch Street to Southend; and Greater Anglia services to Norwich, Ipswich and Colchester.
Agenda Pack 210 of 353 50
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
Given the above issues, the conditional outputs identified for the Orbital (East- West Movement): Other Movements are to: develop options for east-west movement within Hertfordshire; and develop options to provide for east-west rail movement beyond Hertfordshire. The interventions developed to address these conditional outputs are shown in Figure 4.19. Figure 4.19: Orbital (East-West Movement) Other Movements Interventions
The interventions in the table above are described in more detail below: East-West bus/coach service between key stations – Other (possible) – CP5 (2014-2019) A short term intervention for the issue of east-west connectivity is for the provision of a dedicated coach service between key Hertfordshire stations. This could ‘infill’ east-west gaps on the rail network such as between St Albans and Hatfield and between Stevenage and Bishops Stortford. It also has the potential to build up traffic flows towards the level where a business case for a longer term rapid transit solution could be demonstrated. This is, however, a short term intervention and not without risks. Some services already exist and are well used despite being unreliable at peak times. Further passenger increases will be difficult to achieve without new dedicated bus infrastructure to ensure reliability and shorter journey times. Working with TOCs, stronger promotion of these services and inclusion of them in through-ticketing schemes (building on PlusBus) could also assist in building up the core business on these routes. The county council will work with GTR to include services within the National Rail GB Timetable and demonstrate whether there is potential that could justify development of more ambitious schemes. East-West Rail Central Section – Other (under consideration) - CP7+ (2019 - 2024) East West Rail (EWR) is a project originally promoted by a consortium of local authorities and now adopted by DfT. The western section (Oxford – Bedford) is being implemented as an electrified 100 mph railway.
Agenda Pack 211 of 353 51
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
The Central Section corridor has been identified as a direct Bedford – Sandy – Cambridge line, but the detailed route has still to be determined. Hertfordshire will therefore not be directly served by East West Rail, although it will improve connections from e.g. St Albans to Cambridge, and will allow connections to Hertfordshire stations on the East Coast Main Line via interchange at Sandy. The county council will press for all East West Rail services to stop at Sandy in order to maximise this connectivity. The county council will also investigate local rail-based solutions to link towns in the north Hertfordshire / Luton area. Station Interventions Improvements to railway stations will be included in detail in a facilities audit to be completed in 2017.
Orbital (East – West) Movement Strategic Priorities The strategic priorities identified for Orbital (East – West) Movement are presented below: Short term: Facilitate orbital movement between main radial rail lines with a good quality east-west bus coach service between key stations offering through ticketing and timetabled connections. Long term: Provide for east-west movement in the south of the county by working with the industry towards a long term rapid transit solution. TOP PRIORITY -Long term: Develop local east-west rail connectivity in the north of the county through new infrastructure and by ensuring connectivity to the proposed East West Rail Central Section.
Agenda Pack 212 of 353 52
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
4.7 Access to International Airports 4.7.1 Background Access by rail from key centres in the county to the two airports closest to Hertfordshire (Stansted and Luton) is poor and uncompetitive when compared with car. This is because the airports are only accessible from one corridor (WAML for Stansted and Midland Main Line for Luton).In addition, Luton is only served from the station by a bus link and there are no direct services to Stansted from the WAML, other than from Bishops Stortford. Stansted also suffers from there being only one access tunnel to the station imposing a single track section on the layout. This is a significant capacity constraint. By contrast access to Gatwick is particularly good (and will be significantly enhanced once the Thameslink project is fully implemented with direct access from St Albans and Stevenage and other stations on the ECML). However, access via the WCML and West London Line has been lost. Heathrow is well connected via central London by heavy rail and underground services. There are currently uncertainties over where the potential provision of additional runway capacity in the South East will be (either Heathrow or Gatwick) and this could result in a need for improved access to Heathrow and Gatwick should either or both of these be chosen for additional runways, significantly increasing their capacity. 4.7.2 Access to International Airport Strategic Priorities The strategic priorities identified for Access to International Airports are presented below: Short term: . Committed investment will lead to a step change for some corridors in connections to Heathrow (especially if Crossrail 1 is extended to Watford Junction) and Gatwick (Thameslink Programme – providing additional capacity on MML and new direct connection from Great Northern), as well as improvements to Luton (Thameslink Programme) and Stansted (WAML plans). . Additionally there is a need to increase service frequencies and connectivity on the WAML to Stansted Airport with direct services only from Bishop’s Stortford and trains not coinciding with early and late flights (see WAML section above). . TOP PRIORITY - Provision of the Crossrail 1 WCML Link would offer better connections to Heathrow via Old Oak Common.
Long term: . Reinstatement of WCML to Brighton Main Line services via the West London Line to Gatwick would provide direct connections from Watford
Agenda Pack 213 of 353 53
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
and Hemel Hempstead (this would be a top priority for Hertfordshire if Gatwick gets a second runway). . Investigate local rail-based solutions for improved connections to Luton Airport from north Hertfordshire towns. . Provide a chord for direct access from the Hertford East Branch to Stansted Airport (though would be difficult and costly to achieve). Support the enhancement of services to Stansted Airport through the potential extension of some Crossrail 2 services there. Provision of a second tunnel into Stansted Airport station to enhance capacity. Provide stops at Broxbourne and/or Cheshunt on Stansted fast services. If no new direct services to Stansted can be provided then the County Council will press for improved connectivity between trains at interchanges with reduced waiting times.
Agenda Pack 214 of 353 54
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
4.8. HS2 Opportunities 4.8.1 Background HS2 is a planned high speed railway between London Euston and Birmingham with connections to North West England and Scotland (Phase 1), and then on to Leeds and Manchester with connections to North East England and Scotland (Phase 2). Construction on Phase 1 is due to commence in 2017 with a planned completion date of 2026. Phase 2 has been given a planned completion date of 2033. The Hybrid Bill supporting Phase 1 is currently being considered by a Parliamentary Select Committee. 4.8.2 HS2 Opportunities Strategic Priorities The strategic priorities identified for HS2 Opportunities are presented below: Long term: The introduction of Phase 1 in 2026 will provide an opportunity to take advantage of the capacity released on the WCML. Following the start of HS2 services, the county council will lobby for all long distance services on the classic WCML to stop at Watford Junction and for increased frequencies of commuter trains at key stations including but not limited to Berkhamsted and Hemel Hempstead. Long term: HS2 Phase 2 to Leeds could relieve capacity pressure on the ECML from 2033 onwards. The county council will lobby for increased long distance stops at Stevenage and increased frequency and capacity at other key stations such as Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield after the introduction of HS2 Phase 2. Long term: HS2 Phase 2 could relieve capacity pressure on the MML from 2033 onwards. The county council will lobby for increased long distance stops at St Albans and increased capacity at other key stations such as Radlett and Elstree & Borehamwood after the introduction of HS2 Phase 2.
Agenda Pack 215 of 353 55
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
4.9 Station Facilities, Station Access and Train Facilities The development objectives targeted for Station Facilities, Station Access and Train Facilities are: supporting competitiveness; enabling economic growth; supporting the environment and sustainability; and supporting population growth. The key issues and evidence identified in the baseline analysis and in stakeholder engagement for Station Facilities, Station Access and Train Facilities are: station accessibility gaps, for example 40% of the top 20 of stations do not have full accessibility; station facility gaps, for example 2 of the top 20 stations do not have toilets; access to stations, for example only 52% of users are satisfied with car parks; and train facility gaps, for example passenger satisfaction in Hertfordshire is below the South East average for 9 of 17 metrics. Given the above issues, the conditional outputs identified for Station Facilities, Station Access and Train Facilities are to: prioritise rail station improvements to address gaps in disabled access; prioritise rail station improvements to address gaps in provision of facilities; prioritise station access improvements to address gaps in provision; and ensure that all rolling stock that uses the network in Hertfordshire meets the needs of all customers. The interventions developed to address these conditional outputs are shown in Figure 4.20.
Agenda Pack 216 of 353 56
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
Figure 4.20: Station Facilities, Station Access and Train Facilities Interventions
These interventions are described in more detail below: Car park and cycle parking upgrades – Other (possible) – CP5 (2014-2019) In the short term it is proposed that prioritised car park and cycle parking improvements are carried out. This will improve station access for a large number of users and help to secure rail mode share across the county. It should be noted that car park upgrades should be assessed with due consideration to impacts on the local road network and, where possible, the use of sustainable modes to access stations should be prioritised. Station access improvements - Other (possible) – CP5 (2014-2019) This proposed intervention is for prioritised station access improvements (such as to walking and cycling routes, bus access, forecourt interchanges) thereby minimising user conflict, reducing congestion, emphasising access for all. This will make rail a more attractive choice by addressing the whole ‘door to door’ journey. Station and train facility upgrades –Other (possible) – CP6 (2019 -2024) With regards to rolling stock, the county council will lobby for upgrades where possible on all routes. This will lead to greater passenger satisfaction, increased reliability and potentially more capacity through higher capacity trains and potentially more train paths due to faster trains with improved braking. Prioritised station facility upgrades should also be carried out, above and beyond those currently planned for Bishop’s Stortford, Broxbourne and St Albans.
Agenda Pack 217 of 353 57
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
4.9.1 Station Facilities, Station Access and Train Facilities Strategic Priorities The strategic priorities identified for Station Facilities, Station Access and Train Facilities are presented below: Short term: Address station facility gaps through targeted upgrade cycle parking facilities at key stations and car park facilities where appropriate. Short term: Address access to station (including DDA compliance) issues through local improvement schemes, particularly for sustainable modes such as buses (integrated services and through ticketing), walking and cycling. Medium term: Address train facility gaps by working in partnership with rail industry (DfT, Network Rail, TOCs) to secure higher quality of rolling stock on all lines that pass through the county.
Agenda Pack 218 of 353 58
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
4.10 Freight The development objectives targeted for Freight are: supporting competitiveness; enabling economic growth; supporting the environment and sustainability; and supporting population growth. The county council is committed to encouraging the modal shift of freight traffic to rail, both by encouraging Network Rail to continue to provide sufficient freight access on key corridors, and by supporting the provision of suitable freight terminals. The county council also supports the improvement to freight corridors outside the county if this would mean that freight movements would transfer from the county rail network, releasing capacity for passenger services. The key issues and evidence identified in the baseline analysis and in stakeholder engagement for freight are: that peak hour passenger paths are at risk of being impacted by freight traffic. The conditional output identified for Freight is to: work with FOCs to ensure that rail freight growth does not impact on the required level of peak and off-peak passenger services. 4.10.1 Freight Strategic Priorities The strategic priorities identified for Freight are presented below: Short/long term: Manage potential impacts to passenger services from freight path requirements, working with rail industry to develop short term plan and a longer term strategy to encourage rail freight and ensure that peak hour passenger paths are not threatened, especially after the implementation of HS2. Short / long term: Safeguard existing, disused, planned and potential rail heads, links and wharves, where they have the potential for the import and export of minerals and secondary / recycled aggregates, as per national guidance and the locally adopted Minerals Plan. Support the development of new terminals where they can be built to be compatible with the needs of the local communities.
Agenda Pack 219 of 353 59
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
5 Top Priorities The top priorities that have been identified are summarised below.
Additional capacity and enhanced access to Watford town centre through the Metropolitan Line Extension project, and a Watford Interchange Hub.
Improved connections to key destinations such as Sheffield and Nottingham following completion of electrification of the Midland Main Line.
SHORT TERM
Increased capacity and service frequency on the West Coast Main Line, and enhanced journey opportunities to London, HS2 and Heathrow through a Crossrail 1 WCML link.
‘Hertford Loop Metro’ via service improvements (capacity, frequency, speed) to take advantage of the new Stevenage turnback platform and new rolling stock, and develop a
TERM Stevenage Interchange Hub with improved long distance
MEDIUM connectivity.
Transformative east-west rail connectivity in the north of the
county, connecting Stevenage hub to key employment centres and enhancing orbital connections.
Capacity and adequacy improvements on the West Anglia
LONG TERM Main Line via four-tracking and the Crossrail 2 project in Hertfordshire.
It should be reiterated that some topics or areas (such as HS2, access to airports etc.) do not have identified top priorities as they have a series of interventions, none of which individually meet multiple Conditional Outputs.
Agenda Pack 220 of 353 60
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
6 Implementing the Strategy The Rail Strategy has been developed with extensive engagement with a wide range of stakeholders including but not limited to district councils, the rail industry, the business community and other transport providers. This process has developed general support for the recommended interventions and the strategic priorities, although inevitably stakeholders may have differing priorities. The Strategy will be implemented quickly. In particular the top priorities will be developed as a priority to feed into the main rail industry processes, such as Network Rail Route Study consultations, DfT’s HLOS process, and franchise consultations and renewals. The county council is currently developing a long-term Transport Vision as part of its development work for its new Local Transport Plan. Once the outcomes of the Vision work are complete the Rail Strategy will require revisiting to ensure that it aligns with the long term vision and includes any rail related priorities. There is excellent stakeholder interest and support for this strategy both within and outside the rail industry, which the county council with partners will harness to deliver a successful rail strategy that delivers the development objectives for the county.
Agenda Pack 221 of 353 61
Draft Rail Strategy for Environment, Planning and Transport Cabinet Panel
Abbreviations
CP Control Period
DfT Department for Transport
DLR Docklands Light Railway
ECML East Coast Main Line
ERTMS European Rail Traffic Management System
EWR East West Rail
GTR Govia Thameslink Railway
HLOS High Level Output Specification
HS2 High Speed 2
IEP InterCity Express Programme
LUL London Underground Limited
MML Midland Main Line
TOC Train Operating Company tph Trains per hour
WAML West Anglia Main Line
WCML West Coast Main Line
Agenda Pack 222 of 353 62
HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Agenda Item No.
ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING & TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL
THURSDAY, 30 JUNE 2016 AT 10.00 AM 6
INTERCITY WEST COAST RAIL FRANCHISE CONSULTATION
Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment
Author: Trevor Mason, Team Leader Rail Strategy (Tel: 01992) 556117)
Executive Member: Derrick Ashley, Executive Member Environment, Planning & Transport
Local Member: Stephen Giles-Medhurst
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To consider the County council’s response to the Department for Transport’s (DfT’s) consultation on the InterCity West Coast rail franchise.
2. Summary
2.1 The Department for Transport is currently consulting on the specification for the InterCity West Coast franchise, so that a new operator can be in place in April 2018.
2.2 The franchise is currently operated by Virgin Trains, and in Hertfordshire serves Watford Junction station.
2.3 The County Council has an opportunity to respond to the consultation by 2 August 2016.
3. Recommendation
3.1 For Panel to agree the draft consultation response as set out in Appendix 4.
4. Background
4.1 The Department for Transport (DfT) issued a consultation document on the InterCity West Coast rail franchise on 10 May 2016, seeking comments by 2 August 2016. Documentation can be found on the DfT’s website at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/future-of-intercity-west-coast- rail-franchise.
Agenda Pack 223 of 353 1
4.2 The InterCity West Coast franchise is currently operated by Virgin trains. It serves a total of 49 stations, of which 17 are directly managed by the franchise. A map of the line served is shown in Appendix 1.
4.3 The only station served in Hertfordshire is Watford Junction. This is the seventh busiest in the franchise, and the most used of the stations outside of the main conurbations (see Appendix 2).
4.4 The franchise does not include local services on the West Coast main line operated in Hertfordshire by London Midland. These services are included in the West Midlands franchise, the consultation for which was considered by Panel on 8 March 2016.
4.5 The InterCity West Coast franchise is primarily about the train services themselves, with any major infrastructure investment set out in the separate Network Rail route studies.
4.6 The DfT is seeking views on the franchise specification from users, local authorities and any other interested party. Although the County Council is able to respond to this consultation and subsequently talk to the bidders, it is afforded no role to deciding the award of the franchise.
4.7 The new franchise operator will begin delivering the services in April 2018.
5. The InterCity West Coast Franchise in Hertfordshire
5.1 The timetable for weekday northbound trains calling at Watford Junction is shown in Appendix 3. The basic pattern is an hourly service to Birmingham, with additional services in the early morning and late evening. There are a total of 22 northbound services which stop at Watford Junction.
5.2 The hourly Birmingham service can be compared to the three trains per hour which serve the London – Birmingham route i.e. only a third of these services call at Watford Junction.
5.3 As noted above, the InterCity West Coast franchise does not include London Midland services at Watford Junction. It also excludes local services on the Direct Current Lines (DC lines) via Watford High Street which are operated by London Overground, and the Southern services to Croydon which form part of the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise.
6. Consultation Response
6.1 The proposed response to the consultation is set out in Appendix 4.
7. Next Steps
7.1 The consultation closes on 2 August 2016.
Agenda Pack 224 of 353 2
7.2 The outcome of the consultation will be published in a Stakeholder Briefing Document, due in November 2016. At the same time the DfT will issue the Invitation to Tender (ITT) to bidders, with bids closing in around March 2017.
7.3 It is therefore expected that bidders will be seeking the views of the County Council in the August 2016 – February 2017 period.
7.4 The contract will be awarded in November 2017, and the new franchise will start in April 2018.
8. Financial Implications
8.1 The new franchise will operate as a commercial arrangement between the successful bidder and the DfT. There are no financial implications for the county council.
9. Equalities Implications
9.1 When considering proposals placed before Members it is important that they are fully aware of, and have themselves rigorously considered the equalities implications of the decision that they are taking.
9.2 Rigorous consideration will ensure that proper appreciation of any potential impact of that decision on the County Council’s statutory obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty. As a minimum this requires decision makers to read and carefully consider the content of any Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) produced by officers.
9.3 The Equality Act 2010 requires the Council when exercising its functions to have due regard to the need to (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other conduct prohibited under the Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 are age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation.
9.4 There are no equalities implications for any persons with protected characteristics.
Agenda Pack 225 of 353 3
Agenda Pack 226 of 353 4
Appendix 1 Route Map of InterCity West Coast Franchise
Agenda Pack 227 of 353 5
Agenda Pack 228 of 353 6
Appendix 2 Station Usage
Station Passengers (2014/15) London Euston 42,952,298 Birmingham New Street 35,312,768 Glasgow Central 28,964,760 Manchester Piccadilly 24,614,970 Edinburgh Waverley 21,106,540 Liverpool Lime Street 14,870,920 Watford Junction 6,883,708 Milton Keynes Central 6,649,466 Coventry 6,252,888 Birmingham International 5,128,792 Preston 4,557,510 Chester 4,523,402 Wolverhampton 4,495,936 Stockport 3,411,494 Northampton 2,864,848 Stoke-on-Trent 2,685,300 Crewe 2,650,534 Haymarket 2,448,628 Stafford 2,119,250 Rugby 2,046,704 Lancaster 2,004,122 Shrewsbury 1,911,258 Carlisle 1,908,872 Blackpool North 1,757,542 Macclesfield 1,474,612 Wilmslow 1,328,652 Wigan North Western 1,282,076 Motherwell 1,225,648 Nuneaton 1,138,082 Telford Central 1,093,210 Warrington Bank Quay 1,081,176 Tamworth 1,054,190 Lichfield Trent Valley 981,892 Sandwell & Dudley 831,756 Runcorn 750,320 Bangor 670,770 Wellington (Shropshire) 609,240 Wrexham General 551,966 Rhyl 544,356 Poulton-le-Fylde 509,612 Oxenholme Lake District 489,158 Penrith north lakes 475,964 Prestatyn 349,284 Llandudno Junction 340,568 Colwyn Bay 294,858
Agenda Pack 229 of 353 7
Flint 265,910 Kirkham & Wesham 245,806 Holyhead 235,060 Lockerbie 215,300
Agenda Pack 230 of 353 8
Appendix 3 Train Service at Watford Junction
Northbound Monday – Friday
Time Destinations Served 05.45 Milton Keynes Central, Nuneaton, Stafford, Crewe, Runcorn, Liverpool Lime Street 05.50 Milton Keynes Central, Rugby, Crewe, Warrington Bank Quay, Wigan North Western, Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme, Carlisle, Glasgow Central 06.34 Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street 06.51 Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport, Manchester Piccadilly 07.37 Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street 08.37 Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street 09.37 Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street 10.37 Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street, Wolverhampton, Telford Central, Wellington, Shrewsbury 11.37 Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street 12.37 Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street 13.37 Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street 14.37 Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street 15.37 Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street 16.37 Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street 17.37 Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street 18.37 Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street, Sandwell & Dudley, Wolverhampton, Telford Central, Wellington, Shrewsbury 19.37 Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street, Sandwell & Dudley, Wolverhampton 20.37 Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street, Sandwell & Dudley, Wolverhampton 21.25 Rugby, Stafford, Crewe, Warrington Bank Quay, Wigan North Western, Preston 21.58 Milton Keynes Central, Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street, Sandwell & Dudley, Wolverhampton 22.45 Milton Keynes Central, Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street, Wolverhampton 23.15 Stoke-on-Trent, Macclesfield, Stockport, Manchester Piccadilly
Agenda Pack 231 of 353 9
Agenda Pack 232 of 353 10
Appendix 4 Proposed Consultation Response
Q1: We have listed below examples of areas identified that customers would most like improved on their ICWC journey and would ask you to rank your top five. It would help us analyse this information if you could explain why you think this area warrants/needs improvement, if it relates to a particular station or train service, and what you think the new train operator could do to help.
Description Your priority for Reason why you think this improvement (1 = highest warrants/needs to 5 = lowest) improvement, location if appropriate and example of what you would like to see done. Availability of seating at train stations 1= The availability of seating at stations is important, especially for those with limited mobility. Seating should be provided along the length of the platform as many InterCity passengers will have allocated seats on the train. Getting a seat on trains 1= This is essential given the length of journeys made. Car parking facilities at train stations 3= Car parking should be seen in the wider context of a range of options to travel to the station. Additional car parking should only be implemented where there is sufficient capacity on the local highway network. Customer recognition and reward (e.g. 5 loyalty schemes) Increased staff visibility (at train stations or 2= The presence of staff is both on trains) reassuring for passengers and can provide useful travel information. A more proactive approach to customer 4= service at train stations Luggage space on trains 2= Important as many InterCity passengers will have substantial amounts of luggage. Overall satisfaction with the station and 4= their cleanliness Getting between the train and station 2= This is a particular issue at concourse Watford Junction, where the capacity of the linking tunnel and the gateline is insufficient to cope with peak-time passenger numbers. Toilet facilities on train 1= Essential for long-distance
Agenda Pack 233 of 353 11
travel. Being kept informed about delays 2= This is a key area of frustration to passengers. Access to catering and refreshments on 3= board
If there are other areas for improvement not included in the above table, please explain what these areas are and why you think this area could be improved?
Q2: What type/method of communication do you find most effective to: a. Enable you to plan your end to end train journey? b. Be informed in advance about known disruptions such as planned engineering works? c. Be informed during unplanned disruptions both before you travel and during the journey?
This could include, but is not limited to, talking to customer services, notices at stations, leaflets, voice announcements, information on websites or social media. Where possible please provide reasons for your answers.
It should be recognised that rail passengers have a variety of preferences for, and access to, different information sources, and this may vary during the course of their overall journey. Therefore the full range of media should be used, ensuring that the information is correct and consistent across the media.
For planned engineering works, it is key that local consultation is undertaken with local authorities and major employers in advance of any major disruption. Local knowledge will be able to plan alternative routes and identify key times which need to be avoided.
The County Council is particularly concerned about the impact of HS2 construction at Euston and the impact that this will have (a) on intercity (and local) services, and on Watford Junction station if it were to be used as a terminating point for southbound services. There should be early discussions with local authorities on this matter.
For unplanned disruptions it is essential that railway staff are provided with timely information which they can pass to passengers. This information should not only include the nature and likely duration of the disruption, but also alternative routes and means of travel.
Agenda Pack 234 of 353 12
Q3: Are there are any direct journeys currently provided by ICWC that you would want to see protected at a minimum level (e.g. 1 train every 2 hours)? Please say where would this be and your reasons why where possible.
There is a very limited InterCity service at Watford Junction, and therefore all services should be protected as a minimum. The main service is the hourly connection to Birmingham, which should be seen as the absolute minimum frequency in order to provide adequate overall journey times and connections to other services.
The County Council’s aspirations are to develop Watford Junction’s status as a hub station, providing links between local, regional and national services. To this end it sees the expansion of direct Intercity services to other destinations as essential.
Q4: Please rank the options below to indicate your priority for potential changes you would like to see to ICWC train services. Please say where would this be and your reasons why where possible
Issue Please rank these options (1 = Please say where would this be highest priority to 5 = lowest and where possible your priority) reasons why Speed up service for long- 5 distance passengers for example by changing stops at low-use stations. Introduce new stops to provide 1 Trains to e.g. Manchester and services to destinations not Liverpool should call additionally currently directly served by the at Watford Junction. Currently ICWC franchise. there are only two direct services a day to Manchester (early morning and late evening) and only one to Liverpool (at 05.45). Swap an existing stop for another 2 to increase destinations not currently directly served by the ICWC franchise. Adjust the level of service (e.g. 3 Services should be run on Boxing evening, weekend) to better Day. match demand. Better support the economic development of the towns and cities served by the franchise for example by increasing/reducing services for seasonal travel (e.g. tourism, holidays) or for a major event (e.g. concert or sporting event). Improve/connections with other 4 trains services as part of longer– distance journeys. Holding trains at stations for connecting trains
Agenda Pack 235 of 353 13
Q5: Based on your journey, please could you state whether you consider any priority should be placed on either: • Protecting long distance capacity on trains; or • Providing maximum choice of operator over short distance journeys.
Where possible, please provide reasons for your answer.
The County Council’s priorities are to ensure that that there is a good level of service to long distance and local destinations, and that there are good connections between services.
Watford Junction is an important hub for local journeys on the West Coast Main Line, Abbey Line, West London Line and London Overground, and will also be served by the Metropolitan Line from 2020.
The current pick-up / set-down restrictions mean that the InterCity services do not provide an alternative for Watford Junction to Euston journeys. This seems to be a sensible arrangement provided that the level of service provided by the West Midlands franchise is maintained.
Q6: What methods do you think could enable more people to travel and improve the railway’s ability to cater for passenger growth? Where possible, please provide reasons for your answer.
The very limited InterCity service at Watford Junction is a disincentive to travel by rail. For the majority of the day, travel to any destination other than the West Midlands requires taking a West Midlands franchise train to Milton Keynes and then changing to InterCity West Coast. This is despite the fact that Watford Junction has more passengers than Milton Keynes.
Q7: Based on your knowledge of your local area/station, how could the new ICWC train operator:
Watford Junction station is operated by the West Midlands franchise rather than InterCity West Coast, and therefore in Hertfordshire most of these issues are a matter for the former franchise. a. Improve rail services (including all the support functions it needs) in a way that respects and helps to maintain the environment? b. Better support the economic growth of the areas it serves?
The key issue regarding economic development is to provide a train service which provides local businesses with access to customers, suppliers and customers across the country. This requires a major increase in the number and range of direct
Agenda Pack 236 of 353 14
InterCity services from Watford Junction. There are currently only 22 north-bound services every weekend, of which 17 are focussed on destinations in the West Midlands. c. Improve its support and development of its workforce? d. Play a greater role in supporting and improving the community it serves, the heritage of the railway and help develop their stations into hubs for the community?
The County Council would welcome any support that the franchise can provide to the Abbey Line Community Rail Partnership. e. Improve the services offered to reduce discrimination and advance equality of opportunity for people from protected groups?
Q8: Please list, in priority order, the top five facilities you would like to see either improved or introduced at the station(s) served by the ICWC Franchise a) you use; or b) as a non-user would encourage you to use the rail network. Please provide the name of the station(s) and why you think these improvements are needed.
At Watford Junction: i. Improved capacity on the passenger link between platforms and on the gateline to improve safety and comfort at peak times. ii. Enhanced access to the station for all modes of transport. iii. Upgraded concourse to provide adequate provision for current and future passenger numbers. iv. Better physical connectivity to the Abbey Line service to reduce the long walk to the current platform.
Q9: Thinking of the journeys you make or have made on the ICWC, or a journey you could make by the ICWC but where you decide to use an alternative transport mode instead: • what specific changes could be made to make the railway easier to access and therefore more attractive to use; and • why do you think these changes would help?
The decision to travel by rail is not solely dependent on the attractiveness of the train service, but is also influenced by the ease of access to the origin station and ease of onward travel from the destination station. Therefore the County Council wishes to see station travel plans developed by the train operating companies for all stations.
Agenda Pack 237 of 353 15
Q10: Considering the above, what do you think the future ICWC train operator could do to modernise and improve the ticketing experience for customers? Please include your views on the elements or parts of service the train operator should consider when developing their ticketing and ticket retailing plans.
Q11: If there are any additional areas that you think it is important for us to consider that have not already been addressed in this consultation please explain them here.
The franchisee should be fully open to sharing data on ticket sales and other appropriate information that will help to plan transport provision to the station, and engage fully with local authorities and other representative groups e.g. WCR250.
Agenda Pack 238 of 353 16
Agenda Item No.
HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL 7
ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING AND TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL
THURSDAY, 30 JUNE 2016 AT 10.00AM
A120 STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT – STANDON CONSULTATION UPDATE
Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment
Author: David Burt, Project Manager, Major Projects Group (Tel: 01707 281433)
Executive Member: Derrick Ashley, Environment, Planning and Transport
Local Members: Rose Cheswright - Braughing, David Andrews - Ware North Graham McAndrew - Bishop’s Stortford Rural.
1. Purpose of report
1.1 To provide the Panel with an update on the recent consultation on options to improve the A120 at Standon and next steps.
2. Summary
2.1 Analysis of the pre planning public exhibition and engagement process results for the Little Hadham Bypass scheme (late 2014) identified a significant number of requests for the County Council to bring forward a scheme to mitigate the impact of traffic growth on the A120 at Standon. However, this was outside of the current scheme’s geographic and financially approved limits.
2.2 The transport assessment for the Little Hadham Bypass predicts increased traffic flows on the A120 and likely additional delays at junctions and side roads within Standon.
2.3 Hertfordshire County Council’s current approved strategy for the A120 supports the provision of a local bypass for Standon, however, the scheme has not been developed due to the existing Local Transport Plan (LTP) priorities and funding constraints.
2.4 A consultation on options to improve the A120 at Standon, including consideration of Standon bypass options took place in March 2016. The consultation identified that improvements to the existing A120 are the most viable solution in the short to medium term.
Agenda Pack 239 of 353 1
2.5 The proposed next steps are to seek funding to undertake a more detailed assessment of potential improvements to the existing A120 in Standon and report back to the Executive Member of Highways and local County Members on this matter.
2.6 A number of comments were received during the March 2016 consultation with regard to the need for a more strategic review of East West Transport corridors in Hertfordshire. These comments will feed into the Transport Vision process that the County Council is currently developing, to identify and prioritise the key areas and corridors where transport improvements will be required in Hertfordshire from now until 2050. The outcome of the Transport Vision will be reported back to this panel separately.
3 Recommendations
3.1 For the Panel to note the report; the process moving forward will be reported back to the Executive Member for Highways.
4. Existing A120 Strategy and scheme development
4.1 In 2006 the Highways and Transport Panel endorsed a strategy for improvements to the A120 between the A10 and Bishops Stortford following a detailed scheme assessment of a wide range of options. The assessment considered both works to the existing road, bypasses, and completely new offline routes. It also considered whether the improvements should result in a single or dual carriageway road.
4.2 The key points of the strategy were:
1. To recognise the important role of the A120 between the A10 and Bishops Stortford as a Primary Route, by bringing the route up to modern safety standards and providing appropriate capacity, whilst minimising adverse environmental impacts.
2. To make future improvements within the corridor “on-line” where possible, but to promote local bypasses for Standon and Little Hadham.
3. The local bypasses should be of single carriageway standard.
4. In accordance with the Local Transport Plan (LTP) priorities for major projects, a bypass for Little Hadham will be promoted as the first phase of the strategy. Future phases will need to be prioritised against other projects across Hertfordshire as part of the ongoing LTP processes.
4.3 Following this decision the route for the Little Hadham Bypass scheme (including flood alleviation with Little Hadham) was agreed formally but funding constraints prevented the scheme from being progressed in detail. Subsequently, in 2013/14, funding was secured via the Environment Agency, Local Transport Body and Hertfordshire’s Local Enterprise Partnership. Following agreement by the Highways and Waste Panel in March 2015 a
Agenda Pack 240 of 353 2
planning application for the Little Hadham Bypass and Flood Alleviation scheme was submitted as in November 2015.
4.4 Analysis of the predicted future traffic levels on the A120 between the A10 and Bishops Stortford following the construction of the Little Hadham Bypass has been undertaken as part of the required planning submission. As demonstrated in its business case, the Little Hadham bypass scheme delivers significant time savings by diverting the A120 away from the constrained traffic signalised junction at Little Hadham.
4.5 The traffic model for the scheme predicts that this time saving will attract additional traffic to the A120 from existing minor roads in the area. As a result it predicts there may be additional delays at some of the junctions between the A10 and the new bypass including Standon. Full details are included within the transport assessment that forms part of the planning application for the Little Hadham Bypass scheme.
4.6 The current planning application process was paused in March 2016, to allow a review of the application in light of consultee comments relating to protected species and a recent change in government mitigation guidance. In light of this, further bat surveys are being carried out throughout the summer to better understand bat movements at the eastern end of the scheme. Depending on the outcome of these surveys, updates may be required to the planning application. The planning authority will then open a further consultation period, asking for views on any additional information submitted.
5. Standon Consultation
5.1 Following the information note that was reported to this panel in December 2015 (http://www.hertsdirect.org/docs/pdf/a/envtransplanpanelnotes.pdf) a consultation leaflet and feedback form were prepared, and sent via Royal Mail to 2355 addresses, representing every address in the Standon and Braughing parishes, as well as the villages of Broken Green, Wellpond Green and Westland Green.
5.2 The consultation information was also available via the Hertfordshire County Council consultation portal, and the Major Projects web pages (still available at www.hertsdirect.org/a120Standon). A four week consultation period was open between Monday 29 February and Monday 28 March 2016.
5.3 In total 188 paper response forms were returned and 257 responses were submitted online. The responses to the questions are summarised in the graphs and charts in appendix A to this report.
5.4 The outcome of this consultation suggests that there is no single option that is strongly preferred locally. The majority of respondents indicated a preference for a bypass over any online improvements, or no intervention. However, there is no clear indication whether a northern or southern bypass route would be more acceptable to the majority of respondents, with both bypass options being rated more unacceptable than acceptable.
Agenda Pack 241 of 353 3
5.5 The desktop analysis undertaken to inform the information used in the consultation has identified a number of technical constraints and influences. These may affect deliverability in relation to both northern and southern bypass options, including environmental impacts, in particular for southern bypass corridors and the proximity of a Roman Settlement to northern bypass corridors.
5.6 A large number of respondents and statutory consultees highlighted additional constraints relating to either a northern or southern bypass in their answers to questions four and five, further highlighting the difficulties that a potential bypass could face. These were mainly in relation to impacts of a bypass upon the natural and historic environment both north and south of the village.
5.7 Approximately 55% of respondents (scoring 4 or 5) would be happy for online improvements to be made if no viable bypass option can be identified.
5.8 A large number of potential suggestions for online improvements were put forward for online options, suggesting there is both support and potentially a wide scope for small improvements along the A120 at Standon.
6 Post consultation correspondence
6.1 Following the formal public consultation, the project team has received further correspondence from a group of local residents whom are strongly opposed to the principle of a southern bypass of Standon due to the impact it may have upon the Laundry Meadows area south of the village.
6.2 It is understood that the residents are currently in the process of preparing a petition which may be submitted to the County Council.
7. Next Steps
7.1 The consultation has identified that improvements to the existing A120 are the most viable solution in the short to medium term.
7.2 It is now the intention of the Highways Major Projects team to seek funding to undertake a more detailed assessment of potential improvements to the existing A120 in Standon and report back to the Executive Member of Highways and Local County Members on this matter.
7.3 A number of comments were received during the consultation in regard to the need for a more strategic review of East West Transport corridors in Hertfordshire. These comments will feed into the wider development of the Transport Vision that the County Council is currently undertaking to identify and prioritise the key areas and corridors where transport improvements will be required in Hertfordshire from now until 2050. The outcome of the Transport Vision will be reported back to this panel separately.
Agenda Pack 242 of 353 4
8. Financial Implications
8.1 There are no current financial implications as any further study and consultation will be subject to a bidding process within highways budgets for the 2017/18 financial year.
9 Equalities Implications
9.1 When considering proposals placed before Members it is important that they are fully aware of, and have themselves rigorously considered the equalities implications of the decision that they are taking.
9.2 Rigorous consideration will ensure that proper appreciation of any potential impact of that decision on the County Council’s statutory obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty. As a minimum this requires decision makers to read and carefully consider the content of any Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) produced by officers
9.3. The Equality Act 2010 requires the Council when exercising its functions to have due regard to the need to (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other conduct prohibited under the Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 are age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation.
9.4 There are no equalities implications for any persons with protected characteristics.
Agenda Pack 243 of 353 5
Agenda Pack 244 of 353 6
Appendix A – Summary of Standon Consultation Questionnaire responses
Agenda Pack 245 of 353 7
Agenda Pack 246 of 353 8
Agenda Pack 247 of 353 9
HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Agenda Item No.
ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING AND TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL 8 Thursday, 30 JUNE 2016 AT 10:00 AM
REVIEW OF HERTFORDSHIRE’S LOCAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY – ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION
Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment
Authors: John Rumble, Head of Environmental Resource Planning (Tel: 01992 556296) Andy Hardstaff, Flood Risk Management Team Leader (Tel: 01992 556470)
Executive Member: Derrick Ashley, Executive Member for Environment, Planning and Transport.
1. Purpose of report
1.1. To seek Members views on the Issues and Options Consultation Document and the consultation proposals for this stage of the first review of the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for Hertfordshire.
2. Summary
2.1. As Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), Hertfordshire County Council has a statutory duty to “develop, maintain, apply and monitor” a Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS) for the county. The LFRMS is the means by which the LLFA will aim to discharge its general duty to provide leadership in managing local flood risk (from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses1) and helps to provide a focal point for identifying and promoting a range of flood risk related actions across Hertfordshire.
2.2. This report highlights the main issues and options which the county council will be consulting on with key stakeholders and residents as the first step of the review to cover the period from 2017 to 2027. It also sets out the draft consultation programme, which will run from July to the end of September 2016, to secure input to this stage of the review process. The appendices include the draft of the Issues and Options Consultation Document and the draft scoping document for the strategic environmental appraisal of the LFRMS review.
1 An ordinary watercourse is a watercourse that is not part of a main river and includes rivers, streams, ditches, drains, cuts, culverts, dikes, sluices, sewers (other than public sewers within the meaning of the Water Industry Act 1991) and passages, through which water flows. Agenda Pack 248 of 353 1
2.3. The first LFRMS for Hertfordshire was approved in February 2013 by Cabinet and is programmed to cover the period from 2013 to the end of 2016. A review of the LFRMS is now necessary for the following reasons:
i. many of the original actions identified in the first LFRMS have been achieved. ii. the context for the Strategy has evolved including recent changes to regulatory requirements and legislation. iii. the information and understanding of local flood risk held by the LLFA and its partners has significantly improved since the publication of the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment2 in 2010 and the adoption of the first LFRMS in 2013. iv. the LLFA’s experience in carrying out flood investigation work and the future availability of resources can be used to inform priorities and policies.
3. Recommendation
3.1. That the Environment, Planning and Transport Panel:
3.1.1 Endorse the LFRMS review Issues and Options Consultation Document, included in Appendix B for consultation with stakeholders and residents.
3.1.2. Endorse the consultation proposals and indicative timetable as set out in sections 5 and 6 of this report.
4. Background
4.1. The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 describes in outline what the LFRMS must contain and that it must be consistent with the national strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England and was published by the Environment Agency in July 2011.
4.2. The first LFRMS for Hertfordshire was approved in February 2013 and runs from 2013 to the end of 2016. It was to be subject to a review after 3 years and this process is now underway and will be completed in 2017. The indicative timetable for the review is set out in Appendix A to the report. The policies and procedures within the current LFRMS for Hertfordshire will remain in place until the review is completed.
2 The Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment is strategic assessment of flood risk. It looked at historical flood events and identified the potential for future flood events which may have a significant adverse consequence on human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. Outcome of the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment informed the flood risk management priorities and actions in the first LFRMS. Agenda Pack 249 of 353 2
4.3. Defining priorities and actions for local flood risk management will be a key part of the LFRMS review. The Issues and Options Consultation Document is therefore a key element of establishing the priorities and the options prior to the drafting of the LFRMS review. It is anticipated that the consultation on the Issues and Options consultation document will take place from July to the end of September 2016.
5. Issues and options to be included within the Issues and Options Consultation
5.1. There are 7 main issues and questions for which the County Council wishes to seek the views of key stakeholders, which are as follows:
1. What approach should be taken to overall flood risk within the LFRMS? 2. How should the level of investment in flood risk management projects be determined and prioritised? 3. What does the LLFA need to do to link its responsibilities for surface water and groundwater flood risk management and its statutory duties in relation to the provision of land use planning advice on surface water drainage? 4. How should the LLFA link with the Highway Authority in addressing surface water and groundwater flood risk? 5. What approach should the LLFA take to its regulatory responsibilities in relation to ordinary watercourses? 6. What criteria should be used to determine whether flood risk infrastructure should be recorded on the LLFA’s assets and features register? 7. What account should be taken of climate change when considering future flood risk management activities in Hertfordshire?
5.2. The Issues and Options consultation document (Appendix B to the report) sets out the main consultation questions with supporting background information. Consultees will be asked provide a response to the consultation question, as well as being encouraged to include any of their own additional comments or issues as part of their response to the consultation document.
6. Consultation Proposals and Programme
6.1. The consultation period for the Issues and Options consultation for the review of the LFRMS for Hertfordshire is scheduled to run from July to the end of September 2016. During this period the County Council will be consulting with key stakeholders and residents, to obtain their views on the issues included within the document as well as on other matters relating to flood risk management within Hertfordshire.
6.2. The consultation process is to be divided into three distinct strands:
Agenda Pack 250 of 353 3
1. Consultation with stakeholders, via a series of workshops and one to one meetings, to look at the main issues highlighted within the Issues and Options consultation document. Stakeholders will include: the Environment Agency; the District and Borough Councils; the Beds and Ivel Internal Drainage Board, Thames and Anglian Water; the Highways Agency and the Canal and River Trust. 2. Internal consultation with key service departments within Hertfordshire County Council. This will include Highways, Fire & Rescue and the resilience service. 3. Consultation with residents. This will consist of access to the Issues and Options consultation document and a response form that will be published on the County Council’s website. In addition, consultation workshops will be undertaken with a representative group from the Hertfordshire Citizens Panel to look at the specific questions raised within the consultation. Finally, a sample of Hertfordshire residents who have been affected by flooding will be approached to complete an interview based survey, to provide input to the future development of the LFRMS.
6.3. A report compiling all of the responses received during the consultation exercise and setting out a proposed way forward will be presented to Environment, Planning and Transport Panel in late 2016 or early 2017.
7. Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitats Regulatory Assessment
7.1. As a statutory plan the LFRMS is subject to both Strategic Environmental Appraisal (SEA) and Habitats Regulatory Assessment (HRA). The results of both of these processes will be fed into the development of the plan in due course.
7.2. The first stage of the SEA process is to produce a scoping document setting out what will be covered by the SEA given the prospective scope of the plan in question, the LFRMS. The carrying out of a legally compliant SEA process is necessary to ensure that any finally agreed plan is sound. To do this it is necessary to undertake consultation on the SEA at two points, firstly on the scoping document and secondly on the draft SEA of the plan, its policies and proposals.
7.3. The first stage consultation on the SEA scoping document (Appendix C to the report) will be undertaken with the statutory consultees, the Environment Agency and Natural England as well as with other key stakeholders. This will occur at the same time as the issues and options consultation on the plan is undertaken between July and September 2016. It is also the intention that this scoping document will be published alongside the Issues and Options consultation for the LFRMS review, so that anybody who wishes to can comment on this document as necessary.
Agenda Pack 251 of 353 4
7.4. The outcome of the consultation on the SEA scoping document will be used to inform the final SEA of the LFRMS review and reported to Panel alongside the consultation feedback and next steps report in late 2016.
7.5. The HRA requirement relates to the assessment of any impact the plan may have on sites designated under the habitats directive as of European significance. EC Directive (92/43/EEC) on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (‘Habitats Directive’) is implemented (with the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC)) in the UK as ‘The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994’. This legislation provides the legal framework for the protection of habitats and species of European importance. Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive sets out the decision-making tests for plans and projects likely to affect Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs); collectively these sites are referred to as Natura 2000 sites.
7.6. Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the [Natura 2000] site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, must be subjected to appropriate assessment, HRA, of its implications for the site in view of the sites conservation objectives. This applies to all SACs and SPAs, including candidate SACs and Sites of Community Importance (SCI). In the UK as a matter of policy, this is also applied to potential SPAs and designated Ramsar sites.
7.7. The HRA is underpinned by the precautionary principle, especially in the assessment of potential impacts and their resolution. If it is not possible to rule out the risk of harm on the evidence available, then it is assumed that a risk may exist and it needs to be dealt with in the assessment process, preferably through changes to the proposed measure or through options such as avoidance or control measures. If this is not possible the plan will be subject to a full ‘Appropriate Assessment‘.
7.8. HRA requires consideration of all European sites that have potential to be impacted by the plan, this includes sites that may not be within the plan boundary. The European sites within or near Hertfordshire that will be considered as part of the HRA are:
Chilterns Beechwoods SAC. Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire. Wormley-Hoddesdonpark Woods SAC. Hertfordshire. Lee Valley SPA and Ramsar site. Hertfordshire, Essex, Greater London. Epping Forest SAC. Essex. Burnham Beeches SAC. Buckinghamshire. Eversden and Wimpole Woods SAC. Cambridgeshire.
Agenda Pack 252 of 353 5
7.9. The outcome of the HRA will be incorporated into the final draft of the LFRMS for Hertfordshire prior to consultation on the draft strategy which is anticipated to be in May and June 2017.
8. Financial Implications
8.1. There are no additional financial implications arising from this report. The review of the LFRMS has been planned into existing budgets.
8.2. The implementation of final LFRMS is likely to have financial implications for the County Council. These will emerge as the LFRMS is developed and will be reported to Panel at the appropriate stage.
9. Equalities Implications
9.1.1 When considering proposals placed before Members it is important that they are fully aware of, and have themselves rigorously considered the equality implications of the decision that they are making.
9.1.2 Rigorous consideration will ensure that proper appreciation of any potential impact of that decision on the County Council’s statutory obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty. As a minimum this requires decision makers to read and carefully consider the content of any Equalities Impact Assessment (EQiA) produced by officers.
9.1.3 The Equality Act 2010 requires the County Council when exercising its functions to have due regard to the need to (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other conduct prohibited under the Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 are age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation.
9.1.4 No equality implications have been identified in relation to this report, although it should be noted that an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) will be undertaken post feedback from the consultation process detailed in section 6 of this report and presented to Members in late 2016.
Agenda Pack 253 of 353 6
Background Information
Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (Defra) Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for Hertfordshire (2013)
Appendices
Appendix A: Draft Timetable for the production of the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for Hertfordshire
Appendix B: Draft Issues and Options Consultation Document for Hertfordshire’s Local Flood Risk Management Strategy
Appendix C: Draft Scoping Document for the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for Hertfordshire
Agenda Pack 254 of 353 7
Agenda Pack 255 of 353 8
Appendix A: Indicative Timetable for production of Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for Hertfordshire (revised)
Date Activities Panel February to Develop Issues & Options ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING May 2016 consultation document & TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL 30 June 2016
July to end of Consultation of Issues & September Options (including SEA 2016 Scoping Report) October to Review findings from Aim for ENVIRONMENT, December 2016 consultation and set out PLANNING & TRANSPORT next steps CABINET PANEL on 7 December 2016
December 2016 Undertake SEA and HRA to February of LFRMS Options 2017 Draft LFRMS
March 2017 Draft LFRMS for Aim for ENVIRONMENT, Hertfordshire PLANNING & TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL on 31 March 2017
May & June Consultation of draft 2017 LFRMS (including SEA)
July to August Analyse and review 2017 findings from consultation of the LFRMS
September & Finalise LFRMS based ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING October 2017 upon consultation & TRANSPORT CABINET responses and SEA/HRA PANEL tbc Approval of final LFRMS for adoption/ presentation to Cabinet for adoption
CABINET tbc Adoption of final LFRMS
Agenda Pack 256 of 353 9
Appendix B
Hertfordshire County Council
Review of Hertfordshire’s Local Flood Risk Management Strategy
Issues & Options Consultation document
Agenda Pack 257 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
Agenda Pack 258 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
Table of Contents
Revision schedule ...... i
Glossary & acronyms ...... iii
1. Introduction ...... 1
1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Local Flood Risk Management Strategy ...... 1 1.3 Review of 2013 Local Flood Risk Management Strategy ...... 2 1.4 Legislation ...... 3 1.5 Engagement & Consultation Process ...... 4
2. Update on activities and the emerging evidence base since the first LFRMS...... 5
2.1 Understanding of Flood Risk in Hertfordshire ...... 5
2.1.1 Flood Incident Record...... 5 2.1.2 Flood Investigations ...... 5 2.1.3 Options and Feasibility Studies ...... 6 2.1.4 Surface Water Management Plans (SWMP’s) ...... 8
2.2 Ordinary Watercourse Regulation ...... 9
2.2.1 Ordinary Watercourse Regulatory Activity ...... 9 2.2.2 Service Standards for Ordinary Watercourses ...... 10
2.3 Register of Structures and Features...... 12 2.4 Statutory consultee role on surface water and SuDS ...... 12 2.5 Sources of Funding ...... 13
2.5.1 Additional Funding Bids in 2016/17 and beyond ...... 15
2.6 Contributing to Sustainable Development ...... 15
3. Issues and Options for the second LFRMS ...... 16
3.1 Overall View of Local Flood Risk ...... 16 3.2 Investment in Flood Risk Management Projects ...... 17 3.3 Land Use Planning and Surface Water Drainage ...... 18 3.4 Highways ...... 19 3.5 The LLFAs Regulatory Role ...... 19 3.6 Approach to Asset Management ...... 20 3.7 Climate Change ...... 21
4. Next Steps ...... 22
Appendix 1. Consultation Response Form ...... 23
Agenda Pack 259 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
List of maps
Map 2.1 Flood Incidents in Hertfordshire Recorded by the LLFA ...... 7 Map 2.2 Extent of Bedfordshire and Ivel Internal Drainage Board Area in Hertfordshire ...... 9 Figure 2.3 Regional Flood and Coastal Committee Boundaries ...... 14
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Ordinary Watercourse Risk Classifications ...... 10 Table 2.2 Risk Designations of Ordinary Watercourse by District ...... 10 Table 2.3 Summary of LLFA Service Standards for Ordinary Watercourses ...... 11 Table 2.4 Thames RFCC Secured Funding ...... 14
Agenda Pack 260 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
Revision schedule
Hertfordshire County Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Issues & Options Consultation
May 2016 Revision 3 – Panel draft
Rev Date Details Author Checked and Approved by 1 06/04/2016 First draft Suzanne Phillips John Rumble
2 20/04/2016 Pre-Panel draft John Rumble John Rumble
3 12/05/2016 Panel draft John Rumble John Rumble 4 13/06/2016 Final draft John Rumble 5
Agenda Pack 261 of 353 i
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
Agenda Pack 262 of 353 ii
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
Glossary & acronyms
Term / Acronym Explanation Department of Food The UK government department responsible for safeguarding and Rural Affairs our natural environment, supporting our world-leading food (Defra) and farming industry, and sustaining a thriving rural economy. Flood Risk management comes within the department’s remit. Flood and Water An act to make provision about water and the management of Management Act risks in connection with flooding and coastal erosion. 2010 (FWMA) Flood Risk Regulations which transposed the European Floods Directive Regulations 2009 into English and Welsh legislation. They set out the requirements for the Environment Agency and LLFAs to carry out high level assessment of flood risk (PFRA), identify areas at the greatest risk of flooding nationally (Flood Risk Areas FRAs) and the production of plans (Flood Risk Management Plans FRMPs) to manage the risk in FRAs. There are no FRAs in Hertfordshire. Flood Defence Funding from Defra to the Environment Agency which includes Grant in Aid contributions towards the development capital works through (FDGiA) Partnership Funding which can be accessed by all Risk Management Authorities through Regional Flood and Coastal Committees. Flooding and Maps published by the Environment Agency depicting the risk Surface Water of flooding from Main Rivers, the coast and surface water. maps They can be accessed through this link. http://maps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?ep=maptopics&lang=_e Groundwater (As defined in s6 FWMA 2010) - means all water which is below the surface of the ground and in direct contact with the ground or subsoil. Internal Drainage IDBs are the land drainage authority within defined drainage Board (IDB) districts and their functions include the supervision of land drainage, mainly funded by landowners and local authorities, and flood defence works on ordinary watercourses or other flood sources as requested by local authorities or the Environment Agency. A small area of North Hertfordshire is served by an IDB. Land Drainage Act An Act to consolidate the legislation relating to internal 1991 (LDA 1991) drainage boards, and to the functions of such boards and of local authorities in relation to land drainage, as amended by the FWMA 2010. Lead Local Flood In England, either the unitary authority for the area, or if there Authority (LLFA) is no unitary authority, the county council for the area.
Local Flood Risk A statutory strategy for local flood risk management which is Management developed, maintained, applied and monitored by the LLFA. Strategy (LFRMS)
Agenda Packiii 263 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
Term / Acronym Explanation Local Planning The Local Planning Authority (LPA) is empowered by law to Authority (LPA) exercise planning functions. In Hertfordshire the borough or district councils are local planning authorities as well as the county council which is the LPA for waste and minerals matters and its own services such as schools, libraries and highways. National Flood and The strategy sets out a national framework for managing the Coastal Erosion risk of flooding and coastal erosion. It will help risk Risk Management management authorities and communities understand their Strategy for different roles and responsibilities. It aims to encourage the England use of all of the available measures in a co-ordinated way that (NFCERMS) balances the needs of communities, the economy and the environment. National Flood Risk See National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Management Strategy for England. Strategy National Planning The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the Policy Framework Government’s planning policies for England and how these (NPPF) are expected to be applied. National Planning The NPPG supports and informs the government's National Policy Guidance Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which was published in (NPPG) March 2012 and sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. Main River A statutory designation of watercourse in England and Wales, usually larger streams and rivers, but also include some smaller watercourses which have been historically identified as having an impact on flood risk. A main river is defined as a watercourse marked as such on a main river map, and can include any structure or appliance for controlling or regulating the flow of water in, into or out of a main river. The Environment Agency's powers to carry out flood defence works apply to main rivers only. Ordinary As defined in s6 FWMA 2010 - a “watercourse” that does not watercourses form part of a main river. “Watercourse” has the meaning given by s72(1) Land Drainage Act 1991, and includes rivers which are not “main rivers”, streams, ditches, drains, cuts, dykes, sluices, sewers (other than a public sewer). Project Appraisal A stage within the process of FDGiA Partnership Funding Report (PAR) which summarises options appraisal studies and identifies a preferred option. Has been superseded by the need to prepare an Outline Business Case (OBC). Preliminary Flood A high level summary of significant flood risk describing the Risk Assessment probability and consequences of past and future flooding, (PFRA) required by the Flood Risk Regulations 2009.
Agenda Packiv 264 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
Term / Acronym Explanation Regional Flood and A committee established by the Environment Agency to bring Coastal Committee together members appointed by LLFAs and independent (RFCC) members to oversee plans for identifying and managing flood and coastal risks, to promote investment in flood risk management and to provide a link between different authorities and bodies to gain a mutual understanding of flood and coastal risk. Risk Management Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) are defined by the Authority (RMA) Flood and Water Management Act. They have powers to manage some aspect of flood risk The following are risk management authorities: Environment Agency (Main Rivers and coastal erosion) Lead Local Flood Authority (groundwater and surface runoff) District councils where there is no unitary authority (Ordinary Watercourses) Internal Drainage Boards (Ordinary Watercourses) Water companies (public sewers) Highways authorities (highway drainage). Strategic Flood Risk A Strategic Flood Risk Assessment is a study carried out by Assessment one or more local planning authorities to assess the risk to an (SFRA) area from flooding from all sources, now and in the future, taking account of the impacts of climate change. In addition it will also assess the impact that land use changes and development in the area will have on flood risk. Sustainable SuDS mimic nature and typically manage rainfall close to Drainage Systems where it falls. They are a sequence of management practices, (SuDS) control structures and strategies designed to efficiently and sustainably drain surface water, while minimising pollution and managing the impact on the quality of water entering local water bodies. Surface water As defined in s6 FWMA 2010 - rainwater (including snow and other precipitation) which: (a) is on the surface of the ground (whether or not it is moving), and (b) has not entered a watercourse, drainage system or public sewer. Surface Water Surface water management plans investigate local flooding Management Plan issues such as flooding from sewers, drains, groundwater, and (SWMP) runoff from land, small watercourses and ditches that occurs as a result of heavy rainfall. They aim to identify options to reduce local flooding and include a realistic action plan to implement or deliver the agreed management measures.
Agenda Packv 265 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
Agenda Packvi 266 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (FWMA) established Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) as the ‘Lead Local Flood Authority’ (LLFA) for Hertfordshire. The FWMA places a series of new responsibilities on the county council as the LLFA for Hertfordshire to coordinate the management of local flood risk arising from surface water, ground water and ordinary watercourses1.
One of the statutory responsibilities placed on the LLFA is to ‘develop, maintain, apply and monitor’ a Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS). The first LFRMS for Hertfordshire was approved by the Cabinet of the county council in February 2013. This Issues & Options document is the first step in updating the current LFRMS and the aim is to have the new LFRMS in place by the autumn of 2017. The second LFRMS will run from 2017 to 2027 with a high level, broad review undertaken after 5 years. This Issues and Options consultation document sets out the key issues on which the LLFA would like to get views from stakeholders and residents to inform the development of the policies, procedures and operational programmes that will be included in the second LFRMS for Hertfordshire.
1.2 Local Flood Risk Management Strategy
The LFRMS is the means by which the LLFA will discharge its general duty to provide leadership in managing local flood risk (from surface water groundwater and ordinary watercourses) and is the focal point for identifying and promoting a range of flood risk related actions across Hertfordshire. In addition the LFRMS is required to be consistent with the Environment Agency’s (EA) National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy for England.
The Strategy must set out and cover:
The roles and responsibilities of the various Risk Management Authorities (RMAs)2 in the area; What is considered to be ‘locally significant’ flood risk; The objectives for managing local flood risk; Any measures being proposed to achieve the objectives; The possible costs and benefits of any measures, and explore their resource implications; How the LFRMS will contribute to wider environmental objectives; and
1 Watercourses are features such as ditches streams and rivers. Watercourses that have more than a local significance for flood risk are designated as Main River and fall under the remit of the Environment Agency – the remaining watercourses are known as ordinary watercourses and fall under the remit of Lead Local Flood Authorities and district councils.
2 Risk management authorities in Hertfordshire are: The Environment Agency, The County Council, The 10 District and Borough Councils, The Highways Authority, The Highways Agency, The Water and Sewerage Companies and The Beds and Ivel Internal Drainage Board.
Agenda Pack1 267 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
A clear process for any review of the strategy, either in-full or in-part, to be undertaken.
1.3 Review of 2013 Local Flood Risk Management Strategy
The LLFA has a duty to maintain and monitor the LFRMS to support the LLFA and other RMA’s in the management of local flood risk across Hertfordshire both now and into the future. The first LFRMS for Hertfordshire was approved in February 2013 by the Cabinet of Hertfordshire County Council and includes operational activities which run from 2013 to the end of 2016.
The approved LFRMS sets out the policies of the LLFA with supporting procedures setting out how these policies will be interpreted and implemented. The current policies included within the LFRMS cover the following key issues:
POLICY 1 Role of the Lead Local Flood Authority
Covering the county council’s approach to the sustainable management of local flood risk in Hertfordshire.
POLICY 2 Investigation and Reporting of Flood Events
Sets out how the county council will record and where necessary appropriately investigate Flood Events.
POLICY 3 Register of Structures and Features
Sets out the approach to determining which structures and features with a flood risk management function will be recorded on the public register.
POLICY 4 Designation of Structures and Features
Establishes the criteria and the protocol for the designation of third party structures and features which are deemed to have a significant effect on local flood risk.
POLICY 5 Consenting and Enforcement Activities Relating to Ordinary Watercourses
Establishes the county councils approach to consenting and enforcement activities relating to ordinary watercourses.
POLICY 6 Sustainable Drainage Systems Approval Body
This policy and the addendum agreed in March 2015 sets out the county councils approach to Sustainable drainage systems
Agenda Pack2 268 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
These policies can be found at: http://www.hertsdirect.org/services/envplan/water/floods/floodrisk/lfrmsherts/ and http://www.hertsdirect.org/services/envplan/water/floods/surfacewaterdrainage/sudsp olicies/
At the time of its approval it was agreed that the first LFRMS for Hertfordshire would be subject to a review after 3 years and this Issues and Options Consultation document is the first part of that review process.
The review of the LFRMS is necessary for the following reasons:
Many of the original actions identified in the first LFRMS including the development of the first set of service delivery objectives have been completed. Since its adoption by the LLFA in February 2013, the context for the LFRMS has changed including significant changes in the regulatory requirements and legislation within which the activities of the LLFA and the LFRMS operate. The knowledge of local flood risk held by the LLFA and its partners has improved since the publication of the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA) in 2010 and the development and eventual adoption of the first LFRMS in 2013. The LLFA’s experience in carrying out flood investigation work and the future availability of resources can be used to inform priorities and policies.
The second LFRMS for Hertfordshire will cover the period 2017 to 2027 and will be subject to a mid-term review after 5 years. The process for review will be set out in the LFRMS.
1.4 Legislation
The main legislation relevant to the role of the LLFA and the LFRMS for Hertfordshire is as follows:
The FWMA 2010 established Hertfordshire County Council as the LLFA for Hertfordshire. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in 2012 and simplified all the disparate Planning Policy Statements into one coherent framework to underpin the planning system. Flood risk is addressed in the NPPF in Section 10: ‘Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change’. Supporting the NPPF, the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) was also published in 2012, with the section relating to flood risk providing additional details on the approach for strategic level studies and Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRA’s) which are used to support the development of local plans.
Agenda Pack3 269 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
In April 2015, the Government made the LLFA a statutory consultee in planning for all major development in relation to the management of surface water drainage. The NPPF and NPPG were updated to reflect these additional responsibilities for the LLFA. To support this new statutory responsibility the LLFA published and approved a suite of Sustainable urban Drainage System (SuDS) policies as an addendum to the LFRMS for Hertfordshire in March 2015.
In addition the LLFA has a range of duties and powers from the FWMA 2010 and LDA 1991 which include:
Preparing reports and plans to meet the requirements of the Flood Risk Regulations 2009 (FRR). Carrying out investigations of flooding where appropriate and publishing reports. Keeping a public register and associated record of structures and features which have a significant effect on local flood risk. The designation of structures and features where appropriate. The regulation of ordinary watercourses outside of areas covered by Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs).
1.5 Engagement & Consultation Process
The LLFA will be consulting with stakeholders as part of the review of the LFRMS with this “Issues and Options” document the first part of that consultation process. As part of the requirements set out within the FWMA, RMAs that may be affected by the strategy and the public are required to be consulted.
Consultation will also be undertaken throughout the development of the LFRMS and specifically on the draft LFRMS, which it is anticipated will be available in the spring of 2017. In addition consultation will be undertaken at the appropriate points on the Strategic Environmental Assessment and the Habitats Regulatory Assessment associated with the LFRMS.
Agenda Pack4 270 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
2. Update on activities and the emerging evidence base since the first LFRMS
2.1 Understanding of Flood Risk in Hertfordshire
HCC, in its capacity as the LLFA for Hertfordshire, aims to assess flooding across Hertfordshire from the local to the strategic level. At the local level a flood incident record is maintained, and where appropriate flood investigations are carried out. Following a flood investigation, where appropriate, medium to long term studies are commissioned; these ‘Options and Feasibility’ studies aim to identify options to tackle flooding. Action may then be taken to secure funding to progress feasible schemes. At the more strategic level, Surface Water Management Plans (SWMPs) assess flooding on a district wide basis and set out actions to mitigate flood risk in the long term. The SWMP Action Plan aims to stimulate locality specific work to look at options to mitigate flood risk and in due course hopefully secure funding for appropriate schemes.
2.1.1 Flood Incident Record
The LLFA has established a map based flood incident record. This electronic mapped approach enables the LLFA to record all incidents that are reported to the county council, including Fire and Rescue and Highways, as well as all incidents reported to the Flood Risk Management Team related to flooding and surface water drainage. After a large flood event, records of all relevant Fire and Rescue call-outs and Highways incident reports are requested, together with media accounts and resident reports, and added to the LLFA’s database. The flood incident record is also populated throughout the year from flooding reports from a range of sources including, but not limited to, the EA, district and borough councils and Water and Sewerage companies (WaSc).
Where possible the record includes a description of the flooding incident(s), possible causes (if known) and links to additional documentation (reports, photographs and videos, where available) held by the LLFA.
Flooding has occurred across Hertfordshire under a range of different weather conditions, at various times and at locations distributed widely across the county. There have been in excess of 300 flooding incidents recorded by the LLFA in the county since the winter of 2013/2014. Some of these records include multiple reports in the same location (property or road). Map 2.1 provides a high level overview of flood incidents which the LLFA is aware of across Hertfordshire.
2.1.2 Flood Investigations
The LLFA has a duty to carry out flood investigations under Section 19 of the FWMA. The county council’s response to this duty is set out in Policy 2 (Investigation and Reporting of Flood Events) in the current LFRMS and
Agenda Pack5 271 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
includes the circumstances and trigger points that would lead to a flood investigation.
The LLFA can only act to carry out a flood investigation when it is made aware of or becomes aware of a flooding incident within a reasonable time period of that event occurring and if that event activates one of the trigger points.
A flood investigation is carried out to provide a basic overview of a flooding incident. The need to carry out an investigation is not required in all circumstances. The decision to undertake a more detailed investigation has to be proportionate to the incident and further prioritised as the resource capacity to carry out such investigations is limited. What and when the LLFA investigates is detailed on the county council web site, HertsDirect and can be found at the following web address: http://www.hertsdirect.org/services/envplan/water/floods/floodrisk/investigations/
The LLFA is required to issue a report of any investigation that is undertaken and this report must:
Identify the organisations with relevant flood risk management functions for the area. Establish whether any of the relevant organisations have exercised or intend to exercise their flood risk management functions in response to the flood incident. Be published and made available for public scrutiny.
Some key flood events in recent years include; winter 2012/13, winter 2013/14, and summer 2015. These have led to 38 flood investigations being triggered; this includes 8 completed and published, 7 drafted and awaiting publication and 23 at various stages in the investigation process.
Published reports can be accessed via the following web link: http://www.hertsdirect.org/services/envplan/water/floods/floodrisk/investigations/
2.1.3 Options and Feasibility Studies
If appropriate, options and feasibility studies are undertaken following flood investigations. This is in order to gain an understanding of viable options to reduce flood risk, with the aims of submitting the project to the EA’s Project Appraisal Review (PAR) process to compete for national Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGiA) funding.
Agenda Pack6 272 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
Map 2.1 Flood Incidents in Hertfordshire Recorded by the LLFA
Agenda Pack7 273 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
2.1.4 Surface Water Management Plans (SWMP’s)
Published by The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in 2010 the ‘SWMP Technical Guidance’ provides information and advice for LLFA’s on the management of local surface water flood risk. This guidance document is being used to support the development of SWMP’s in Hertfordshire and states that a SWMP is a plan which outlines the preferred surface water management strategy in a given location. Surface water flooding is described as flooding from sewers, drains, groundwater, and runoff from land, small watercourses and ditches that occurs as a result of heavy rainfall.
SWMPs within Hertfordshire are being developed on a district/borough wide basis. This is considered to be appropriate within Hertfordshire as it links to their role in local planning allocation and connections with any other local RMAs.
All of the SWMP’s take advantage of the EA’s Risk of Flooding from Surface Water maps which were published in December 2012. From observations of the surface water flooding that occurred in Hertfordshire during the winter 2013/14 and in July 2015 it is evident that the maps reasonably predict surface water flow pathways. The latest SWMPs are being developed using the following methodology:
1. Identify hotspot sites within each district/borough that are have common flooding mechanisms posing risk to individuals, property, the economy, roads, critical infrastructure and the environment.
2. Following identification of hotspots, discussions are held between stakeholders and other RMAs. Ranking is undertaken to identify the top five hotspots within each district/borough.
3. The top five ranked hotspots from each district/borough are taken forward for more detailed analysis. This involves computer modelling of surface water flooding where; more detail is included at the street scale, such as survey information on kerb heights or property access points. This enables a better representation of the overland surface water flowpaths and provides more detail than is available from the EA’s Risk of Flooding from Surface Water maps. The flood modelling is undertaken for a range of different design flood events in order to understand the effect of these events their potential impact upon each hotspot location.
4. Modelled results are then assessed in terms of flood damages; this is the estimated damage to each property if it is impacted by flooding.
5. Options are identified for mitigating flood risk within each hotspot.
6. The understanding gained of flood damages for each hotspot means that any options identified for mitigating flood risk can be understood in terms of cost- benefit. This cost-benefit analysis provides the basis upon which the LLFA can be proportionate when looking at flood risk sites and assists in determining where to focus future funding bids.
Agenda Pack8 274 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
7. An action plan is produced as a final output for the SWMP; this is used as a base for further studies and to focus the future work of the LLFA in flood risk areas.
8. A final SWMP report is produced and published in a clear and concise format that is understandable by the public.
2.2 Ordinary Watercourse Regulation
From 6 April 2012 the county council, in its capacity as the LLFA, took on the regulatory responsibility relating to all watercourses that were not designated as main-river, known as ordinary watercourses. In doing so the LLFA chose to adopt the approach and operating procedures handed over from the Environment Agency (EA) with a commitment to review its approach to the service within two years. This review of the service was completed in April 2014 and resulted in the ordinary watercourse service standards which were approved by the county council as the way forward for the LLFA. A copy of these standards can be found at: http://www.hertsdirect.org/services/envplan/water/floods/ordwatercourse/servstand/
The changes to ordinary watercourse management that have resulted from the implementation of the FWMA mean that the LLFA (except in IDB areas, see Map 2.2 below, showing the area covered by IDB in Hertfordshire) now leads on ordinary watercourse consenting and enforcement, as per the following sections in the Land Drainage Act 1991:
Map 2.2 Extent of Bedfordshire and Ivel Internal Drainage Board Area in Hertfordshire
Agenda Pack9 275 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
2.2.1 Ordinary Watercourse Regulatory Activity
Anyone wishing to carry out works or place structures in an ordinary watercourse must seek consent from the LLFA. Where structures do not have consent or watercourses have been neglected, the LLFA has powers to require the removal of the structures and to seek the restoration of the watercourse.
Further information in regards to ordinary watercourse consents can be found on our website: http://www.hertsdirect.org/services/envplan/water/floods/ordwatercourse/
Where appropriate, applicants for consents are guided to use structures or undertake works that do not obstruct the flow within the channel and therefore do not require consent. Where there have been unconsented works or lack of maintenance of an ordinary watercourse; the LLFA seeks to resolve the situation through a process of negotiation. Enforcement action is only pursued when all other attempts to remedy the situation have failed and the consequences of not taking action are considered to pose a high level of risk.
2.2.2 Service Standards for Ordinary Watercourses
The LFRMS is required by the National Flood Risk Management Strategy to assess risks in order to prioritise activity and any action taken to alleviate flooding from ordinary watercourses. In order to comply with this requirement, all known ordinary watercourses in Hertfordshire (1,277 km) have been risk assessed. Each 100m stretch of mapped ordinary watercourse has been assigned an indicative risk score of High, Medium or Low. Table 2.1 below explains how this indicative risk score has been assigned.
Table 2.1 Ordinary Watercourse Risk Classifications
Indicative Typical situation Total Length Risk Score (km) High Watercourses in urban areas where a blockage would cause water to leave the channel and 52 potentially flood property or roads. Medium Watercourses outside urban areas where a blockage would cause water to leave the channel 309 and not easily re-join, with some potential to flood roads or property. Low Watercourses in farmland where if a blockage where to occur water would leave the channel and 916 then re-join after a short distance, but would not flood public roads or property.
Agenda Pack10 276 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
This risk assignment gives an indication of potential likelihood and severity of flooding linked to an ordinary watercourse on housing, roads and other critical infrastructure. This approach forms the platform from which the Service Standards have been developed. The lengths of ordinary watercourse for each risk classification and for each local authority area divided by risk level is shown in table 2.2 and a summary table of services offered by the LLFA and the standards relating to them is provided in Table 2.3.
Table 2.2 Risk Designations of Ordinary Watercourse by District
District Length of ordinary watercourse (km) High Medium Low Broxbourne 6.2 21.3 53.2 Dacorum 2.0 15.3 32.8 East Hertfordshire 23.4 102.7 385.5 Hertsmere 2.0 18.1 72.5 North Hertfordshire* 7.6 67.8 200.2 St Albans 3.0 22.7 22.3 Stevenage 1.6 3.2 2.1 Three Rivers 1.8 24.0 27.9 Watford 1.6 2.4 2.9 Welwyn Hatfield 2.85 31.2 117.1 Hertfordshire 52.13 308.5 916.4 % 4.0 24.2 71.8 * excludes ordinary watercourse falling within the IDB area
Table 2.3 Summary of LLFA Service Standards for Ordinary Watercourses
Activity Service Standards Monitoring & High Risk - Inspected every two years Inspection Medium Risk - Inspected every seven years Low Risk - Inspected on notification of a problem Complaint about High Risk - Response within 5 working days Watercourse Medium Risk - Response within 10 working days Low Risk - Response within 20 working days
All complaints are subject to a desk-based risk assessment and will have an initial response within three working days.
Agenda Pack11 277 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
Activity Service Standards Consenting On receipt of duly made application, a response will be sent within 5 working days and, if necessary, a site visit agreed at a convenient date and time for all parties.
A duly made application consists of the following: Completed forms; Location map of proposed works; Indicative plans and cross sections of works; Thorough method statement of works; Environmental report; Nationally prescribed Application fee (£50 per structure).
Statutory 8 week period from receipt of full application to determine the outcome.
A commitment has been made to aim to survey all watercourses with an indicative risk score of ‘High’ every 2 years. This is to establish a baseline against which unauthorised structures can be identified as well as then ensuring an up to date audit of the condition of the watercourse. Medium indicative risk score watercourses will be surveyed on a seven-yearly cycle. Those in the low category will only be surveyed as and when enquiries or complaints are made.
2.3 Register of Structures and Features
The LLFA has a duty to maintain a register of structures and features that have a significant effect on flood risk under section 21 of the FWMA.
The county council in its capacity as the LLFA for Hertfordshire has prepared and published a register of structures and features. The register records the type of structure, ownership and condition. The register is particularly important for the identification of structures and features which may be in a poor condition and could have an impact on local flood risk. The register of structures and features is a live document and is populated and updated periodically as the LLFA becomes or is made aware of further significant structures and features. The current register can be viewed on the website at: http://www.hertsdirect.org/services/envplan/water/floods/floodrisk/assetregister/
2.4 Statutory consultee role on surface water and SuDS
On 14 December 2014, the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) issued a Written Ministerial Statement setting out changes to the planning system with respect to Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). This Statement set out Government’s expectation that local planning
Agenda Pack12 278 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
policies and decisions on planning applications relating to major development3 should, “ensure that sustainable drainage systems for the management of surface water run-off are put in place, unless demonstrated to be inappropriate”.
The NPPF was updated accordingly on 6 April 2015 and, in anticipation of the new duty, the LLFA updated its SuDS policy statement to reflect changes to the planning system that were adopted by the council as an addendum to the current Hertfordshire LFRMS at its Cabinet meeting on 23 March 2015.
On 15 April 2015 the LLFA was made a statutory consultee to LPAs on major development planning applications on matters relating to surface water. This new role was introduced by DEFRA and DCLG in place of the anticipated SuDS Approval Body as set out in Schedule 3 of the FWMA 2010.
Under these arrangements, in considering planning applications, Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) are required to consult the LLFA on the management of surface water, satisfy themselves that the proposed minimum standards of operation are appropriate and ensure through the use of planning conditions or planning obligations that there are clear arrangements in place for ongoing maintenance over the lifetime of the development. At the beginning of April 2016, one year following the introduction of the new duty, the LLFA had received over 340 consultations from the 11 LPAs.
2.5 Sources of Funding
Regional and national funding for flood risk management projects is potentially available through the national Medium Term Programme administered by the EA and the two Regional Flood and Coastal Committees (RFCCs), Thames and Anglian Central, covering Hertfordshire, see Figure 2.3.
National funding for flood risk schemes, Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGiA), is awarded against a set formula for calculating the benefits of schemes and paid in proportion to a range of nationally required outcomes. The amount awarded may not cover the full scheme costs, so for a scheme to be implemented it may require additional local or regional funding to be secured.
Regional funding is raised by the RFCCs via a levy from the upper tier local authorities in their area, which for Hertfordshire is the county council. This funding is applied at the discretion of the relevant committee in response to locally identified flood risk. Hertfordshire County Council has a permanent seat and vote on the Thames RFCC and shares a seat and vote with Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire on the Anglian Central RFCC. In 2015/16 the county council’s total contribution to the two RFCCs was £944,000, of which £881,000 went to the Thames RFCC and £63,000 to the Anglian Central RFCC.
3 Developments of 10 dwellings or more; or equivalent non-residential or mixed development (as set out in Article 2(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010).
Agenda Pack13 279 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
Figure 2.3 Regional Flood and Coastal Committee Boundaries
Anglian Central RFCC Thames RFCC
© Crown copyright and database rights 2014 Ordnance Survey 100019606. Use of this data i s subj ect to term s and conditions. You are not permitted to copy, sub-li cence, di stribute or sell any of this data to thi rd parties i n any form . (T his restriction may not apply to HCC and its li cenced contractors agents and partners.)
N
The county council has successfully bid for funding from the Thames RFCC to fund a number of studies within the county. The aim of the studies is to propose and explore appropriate, proportionate, feasible and economically beneficial options to reduce flood risk. The studies will inform the business case for projects to enable them to be taken to the next stage of FDGiA (detailed design) and if feasible options are identified, will potentially secure funding for the scheme to proceed.
The amount of funding secured and the number of projects being supported is as shown in table 2.4.
Table 2.4 Thames RFCC Secured Funding
Project Start Location No of projects Grant Funding 2014/15 Kimpton 1 £55,000 2015/16 Watford, Hertford, Long 3 £60,000 Marston, 2016/17 Watford, Hertford Knebworth, 4 £218,000 Potters Bar 2018/19 Rickmansworth, London 2 £50,000 Colney 2020/21 Redbourn, Welwyn 2 £20,000
Agenda Pack14 280 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
2.5.1 Additional Funding Bids in 2016/17 and beyond
The LLFA has in the past been invited to submit bids for the refresh of the 2015- 2021 Medium Term Plan (MTP); it is likely that further annual submission of bids will be called for. In order to continually maintain and develop a local programme of schemes which can be funded through to implementation stages it is important to continue to develop new bids and ensure that there is a steady stream of projects being worked on to address the wide range of surface water issues found within the county.
2.6 Contributing to Sustainable Development
The FWMA requires RMAs, of which the county council in its role as LLFA is one, to aim to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development when exercising their flood risk management functions. To fulfil this function the LLFA has been working with partners, including the Countryside Management Service, the Environment Agency, Affinity Water and the district and borough councils on projects which have flood risk benefits as well as environmental and amenity benefits; these projects include:
Waterford Marsh Ordinary Watercourse Restoration Broxbourne Wood National Nature Reserve (NNR) access improvements Haldens Park Wetland Wildlife Project Pix Brook Watercourses Project Oughtonhead Common Wetland Enhancements
Agenda Pack15 281 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
3. Issues and Options for the second LFRMS
Defining priorities and actions for flood risk management in Hertfordshire will be a key part of the LFRMS refresh. In order to assist the LLFA in developing these priorities it wishes to consult with key stakeholders and residents on a range of issues and specifically the following questions which are of relevance to the LFRMS review:
What approach should be taken to overall flood risk within the LFRMS? How should the level of investment in flood risk management projects be determined and prioritised? What does the LLFA need to do to link its responsibilities for surface water and groundwater flood risk management and its statutory duties in relation to land use planning and surface water drainage? How should the LLFA link with the Highway Authority in addressing surface water and groundwater flood risk? What approach should the LLFA take to its regulatory responsibilities in relation to ordinary watercourses under the land drainage act of 1991? What criteria should be used to determine whether flood risk assets should be recorded on the LLFA’s assets and features register? What account should be taken of climate change when considering future flood risk management activities in Hertfordshire?
To support the understanding of the overall issues and the questions that we are asking stakeholders to respond to each questions is supported by some contextual and background information along with possible approaches. These are provided to stimulate discussion and inform priorities but are not recommendations or preferred approaches. The questions posed are provided as a means to focus the consultation; however respondents are encouraged to provide feedback on other matters if they consider them relevant and appropriate.
3.1 Overall View of Local Flood Risk
Consultation question:
What approach should be taken to overall flood risk within the LFRMS?
Context and background:
Hertfordshire County Council as the LLFA has the role of managing flood risk from surface and groundwater; other sources of flood risk are managed by other RMAs, including the Environment Agency, the District and Borough Councils and the Highways Authorities. Given that flood risk in the county is not limited to surface and groundwater flooding, the LLFA wishes to explore options on the approach that needs to be taken by the LFRMS when setting out how overall flood risk will be managed within the LFRMS and Hertfordshire.
Agenda Pack16 282 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
There are a significant number of different agencies and organisations involved in flood risk management in Hertfordshire, these include, but are not limited to, the Environment Agency, the District and Borough Councils, the County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority and Highways Authority, The Highways Agency and the Bedford and Ivel Internal Drainage Board. In addition utilities companies such as Thames Water and Anglian Water play a key role as part of their management of surface water. Other key stakeholders in flood risk management will also include land and property owners where they have riparian responsibilities for watercourses.
The approach taken by LFRMS will depend on the level of involvement that third parties will have in the strategy and its implementation, therefore the LLFA is seeking views on the extent to which the LFRMS should cover these wider responsibilities of other bodies and individuals who may have a role in flood risk management in the county.
3.2 Investment in Flood Risk Management Projects
Consultation question:
How should the level of investment in flood risk management projects be determined and prioritised?
Context and background:
Flood risk management schemes can be funded through a variety of sources. This could be at the level of an individual dwelling or resilience measures to protect multiple properties. The county council, like other RMAs, has powers allowing it to manage specific types of flood risk. Since 2010 a number of potential schemes have been identified through detailed flood (Section 19) investigations, other technical studies and via the production of a series of district wide SWMPs. Within the next two years it is anticipated that in excess of 50 potential schemes will have been identified.
The RFCCs give access to national and regional funding; FDGiA and local levy and to date the LLFA has put forward ten schemes for inclusion on the Thames RFCC’s Medium Term Plan. The early investigation stages of these projects have all been fully funded through FDGiA and levy but this is unlikely to be sustained as the cost- benefit scores are likely to mean that any schemes will require local top-up funding. It should be noted that property owners are ultimately responsible for managing flood risk to their property and may often be required to contribute towards scheme costs or to fund activity themselves. In order to get the maximum benefit from FDGiA and levy funding it is likely that contributions to scheme costs will need to be generated from scheme beneficiaries and local stakeholders.
In order to develop its thinking on these matters the LLFA is seeking the views of stakeholders and residents in two main areas. Firstly on prioritisation; a large number of potential flood risk management schemes are likely to be coming forward for consideration and it would be helpful to provide clarity on how the decision on
Agenda Pack17 283 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
which schemes should be prioritised will be made. Issues that could be considered are:
The number of properties affected and the level of flood risk. The availability of funding and the likelihood of that funding being realised. The opportunities for realising multiple benefits from a scheme.
Other criteria which may be taken into account could include:
health impacts social impacts; economic costs environmental impact impact on infrastructure scheme costs
Secondly in relation to Investment; who should be involved in funding flood risk management schemes and how should they be involved in the development of schemes aimed at managing the probability and impact of flooding.
3.3 Land Use Planning and Surface Water Drainage
Consultation question:
What does the LLFA need to do to link its responsibilities for surface water and groundwater flood risk management and its statutory duties in relation to land use planning and surface water drainage?
Context and background:
On 15 April 2015 the LLFA was made a statutory consultee to the Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) on major development planning applications for surface water management to ensure that sustainable drainage systems are put in place, unless demonstrated to be inappropriate. This new role was introduced by DEFRA and DCLG in place of the anticipated SuDS Approving Body (SAB) as set out in Schedule 3 of the FWMA 2010. In March 2015 the LLFA updated its SuDS policy statement to reflect these changes to the planning system and this was adopted by Hertfordshire County Council as an addendum to the first Hertfordshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy.
The LFRMS sets out the role of the LLFA as a statutory consultee to the LPAs and current policies regarding flood risk management and SuDS. Currently the LLFA has been managing the responsibility as statutory consultee by providing a formal response to consultations on major planning applications. However, there are opportunities for the LLFA to be more involved at different stages in the planning
Agenda Pack18 284 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
process, principally in local plan development and for land use planning to be used pro-actively to address flood risk issues.
3.4 Highways
Consultation question:
How should the LLFA link with the Highway Authority in addressing surface water and groundwater flood risk?
Context and background:
Highway systems are designed to manage precipitation falling on the highway and highway design standards nationally and locally reflect this. Additional overland flows may also enter the highway network from private land or from water surcharging from other networks such as surface water networks that are managed by the utility companies. This additional water can result in flooding when the highway network cannot cope with the additional flows.
Due to the nature of many roads, when precipitation or overland flows exceed the capacity of the highway drainage, the highway can effectively become a channel, becoming the transport mechanism for water and in some cases this can result in flooding to property.
The LLFA currently works collaboratively with local highways authority (Herts Highways) and the national Highways England on flooding matters which may affect the highway network. Both the local highways authority (Hertfordshire County Council) and the national Highways England are supported by organisations, such as DEFRA, the DfT and the Environment Agency, in establishing a more sustainable approach to the design and operation of highway drainage systems. The local highway authority and the Highways England are both RMAs and have a duty to making sure that the highway is safe and usable.
3.5 The LLFAs Regulatory Role
Consultation question:
What approach should the LLFA take to its regulatory responsibilities in relation to ordinary watercourses?
Context and background:
The current powers and responsibilities of the LLFA are limited to regulating works in the channel of ordinary watercourses. Therefore, managing flood risk through the regulation of ordinary watercourses is limited to any proposed modifications to the channels, leaving factors such as the volumes and quality of water flowing through ordinary watercourses out of the control of the LLFA.
Agenda Pack19 285 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
Currently, the LLFA classifies ordinary watercourses as having either a high, medium or low impact on flood risk. High risk ordinary watercourses tend to be located in urban areas whist medium risk ordinary watercourses can be located both in urban and rural areas but where the consequences of flooding would not be as significant. Ordinary watercourses classified as high or medium risk are inspected on a regular basis in order to ensure that any contraventions of the Land Drainage Act in areas at risk of flooding are identified and dealt with as appropriate. The LLFA’s experience from inspections completed on the ordinary watercourse network leads us to conclude that many riparian landowners are not aware of their rights and responsibilities. Therefore obstructions to the flow within the channel can arise due to the lack of maintenance or if modifications to ordinary watercourses are undertaken without consent.
There are two main issues that are of concern; firstly what level of regulatory control is appropriate for the effective and efficient management of ordinary watercourses and secondly what mechanisms need to be in place to affect that regulatory control.
3.6 Approach to Asset Management
Consultation question:
What criteria should be used to determine whether flood risk assets should be recorded on the LLFA’s assets and features register?
Context and background:
The LLFA has a duty to maintain a register of structures and features that have a significant effect on flood risk. The criteria that determines whether a feature or structure has a significant function in local flood risk management is set locally by the LLFA. To date, the structures and features that have been included on the register have been identified through submissions from district councils; section 19 flood investigations; ordinary watercourse inspections and through research undertaken for surface water management plans. To date, assets have been deemed to be significant if their failure or removal would lead to a risk of property flooding.
The register must be supported by a record which includes details of the condition of the asset and its ownership. In some cases, establishing these can involve a considerable amount of resources. Therefore the criteria for determining which assets will be placed on the register needs to be clear and understood by asset owners, risk management authorities and the LLFA. Criteria which could be used may include:
The local flood risk management function of the asset. The condition of the asset. The maintenance requirements for the asset. The ownership of the asset.
Agenda Pack20 286 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
3.7 Climate Change
Consultation question:
What account should be taken of climate change when considering future flood risk management activities in Hertfordshire?
Context and background:
The FWMA 2010 requires risk management authorities, of which the county council in its role as LLFA is one, to aim to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development when exercising their flood risk management functions. The Government has identified a number of key themes for sustainable development; one of them is taking action to tackle climate change4.
The NPPF sets out how the planning system should help minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to the impacts of climate change. On 19 February 2016 updated climate change allowances were released to support NPPF. This was to take account of potential increases in peak rainfall intensity and river flow as a result of climatic change, which could result in more frequent and severe flood events.
The Lead Local Flood Authority currently uses the updated climate change allowances as the benchmark for the advice given as a statutory consultee for all major development in relation to the management of surface water drainage.
4 Defra, Guidance for risk management authorities on sustainable development in relation to their flood and coastal erosion risk management functions, October 2011
Agenda Pack21 287 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
4. Next Steps
The indicative timetable for the production of Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for Hertfordshire is as follows:
July to September 2016 Consultation on Issues & Options for the LFRMS (including the Strategic Environmental Assessment Scoping Report) Spring 2017 Consultation on the draft LFRMS (including the Strategic Environmental Assessment) Autumn 2017 Publication of second LFRMS for Hertfordshire
During this time the LLFA will continue to engage with partners including other RMAs to ensure that the second LFRMS fully explores and takes account of flood risk related issues and actions that affect Hertfordshire.
Agenda Pack22 288 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document
Appendix 1. Consultation Response Form
(to be added once agreement to consultation questions is approved following Environment, Planning and Transport panel on 30 June 2016.)
Agenda Pack23 289 of 353
June 2016 LFRMS Issues and Options Consultation Document Appendix C
Hertfordshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy
Strategic Environmental Assessment Scoping Report
Prepared by LUC April 2016
Agenda Pack 290 of 353
Project Title: Strategic Environmental Assessment of Hertfordshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy
Client: Hertfordshire County Council
Version Date Version Details Prepared by Checked by Approved by
1 14/9/15 First draft for client Susanne Juliette Juliette Young review Underwood Young
2 22/04/16 Final version for Susanne Taran Taran consultation Underwood Livingston Livingston Kate Nicholls
Agenda Pack 291 of 353
Hertfordshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy
Strategic Environmental Assessment Scoping Report
Prepared by LUC April 2016
Planning & EIA LUC LONDON Offices also in: Land Use Consultants Ltd Registered in England Design 43 Chalton Street Bristol Registered number: 2549296 Landscape Planning London Glasgow Registered Office: Landscape Management NW1 1JD Edinburgh 43 Chalton Street Ecology T +44 (0)20 7383 5784 London NW1 1JD Mapping & Visualisation [email protected] FS 566056 EMS 566057 LUC uses 100% recycled paper Agenda Pack 292 of 353 Contents
1 Introduction 1
The study area and key characteristics 1 Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 2 Strategic Environmental Assessment 3 Equalities Impact Assessment 4 Structure of the Scoping Report 4
2 SEA Process and Methodology 5
Stages in the SEA Process 5 How will the Scoping Report be used? 6
3 Relevant Plans and Policies 7
Summary of Review of Plans, Policies and Programmes 11
4 Baseline Information and Key Environmental Issues 12
Baseline Information 12 Hertfordshire County Geographical Context 12 Environmental Baseline Data 12 Key Environmental Issues and Likely Evolution without the Strategy 24
5 SEA Framework and Approach to the SEA 27
SEA Framework and Approach to the SEA 27 Approach to the later stages of the SEA 27 Assessment of Alternatives 28 Draft Environmental Report 28
6 Next Steps 30
Consultation 30
Appendix 1 31
Review of Plans, Policies and Programmes of relevance to the SEA of the LFRMS 31
Agenda Pack 293 of 353 1 Introduction
LUC was appointed by Hertfordshire County Council in August 2015 to prepare the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Scoping Report for the review of the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (hereafter referred to as the LFRMS).
The purpose of this Scoping Report is to outline the framework for undertaking the later stages of the SEA of the emerging LFRMS. This involves reviewing other relevant plans and programmes, considering the current state of the environment in Hertfordshire, identifying any key environmental issues or problems which may be affected by the LFRMS and developing an ‘SEA framework’ comprising specific objectives against which the measures included in the LFRMS will be assessed.
The study area and key characteristics
Hertfordshire is located immediately to the north of London, adjoining the counties of Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire and Essex and the unitary authorities of Central Bedfordshire and Luton. Hertfordshire covers an area of 1,642 km2.
Hertfordshire has a distinctive mix of small to medium sized urban settlements juxtaposed with many smaller villages. All of Hertfordshire’s towns and villages are of archaeological significance. Many of them date from the medieval period although the ‘new’ towns of the twentieth century should equally be considered as important cultural assets (the latter include Letchworth and Welwyn Garden City). The largest towns are Watford, Hemel Hempstead, Stevenage and St. Albans. Overall, there is no single dominant urban centre, but a dense network of towns. Hertfordshire’s dispersed settlement pattern is a major contributor to increased car traffic.
The East and West Coast Mainline railways both pass through the county, with stations at Stevenage, Watford Junction and Hemel Hempstead. These routes are part of the trans- European transport network (TEN-T)) and provide connections to the Continent via the Channel Tunnel and the high speed links onwards to Paris, Brussels and elsewhere. The main freight route to Europe is via Felixstowe and Harwich, to which there is easy road access from Hertfordshire via the A120.
Over half of the Hertfordshire land area is designated as Green Belt, and also includes the Chiltern Hills to the west and north west, designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). However, both the natural environment and the built environment are subject to pressures, particularly from development and congestion linked to increased levels of traffic. Parts of the east of the county fall within the London–Stansted–Peterborough Corridor Growth Area. Proposals for additional development around Luton and Dunstable could affect North Hertfordshire.
Hertfordshire is served by the Grand Union Canal and the Lee/Stort Navigations, which are navigable to narrow boats. Although originally built as commercial waterways they are now predominantly used by leisure craft. The length of major navigable waterways in Hertfordshire is approximately 55 km.
The geology of Hertfordshire ranges from the claylands of the London Basin to extensive chalklands, and is the major factor determining the county’s topography and its soils. Gault clay outcrops are found only at the north western extremity of the county. Elsewhere it is overlain by up to 205 metres of chalk, which forms the Chiltern Hills in the north west with their chalk scarp and dip slope cut by valleys. The Reading Beds clays and gravels which were deposited over the chalk have largely been eroded apart from some outlying hills, such as that on which St. Albans is built. Glacial clays and gravels overlie much of the north east of Hertfordshire, and river gravels occupy the Vale of St Albans and many of the river valleys. The chalk which underlies most of Hertfordshire forms an important water aquifer which provides water from wells and pumped Agenda Pack 294 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS SEA Scoping Report 1 April 2016 boreholes, a vital source of public drinking water and water for industry and agriculture. It also forms a part of the natural environment providing, in particular, water for the chalk streams which flow across the county.
A summary of flood risk in Hertfordshire is provided in the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for Hertfordshire 2013-20161. Hertfordshire is at risk from a variety of sources of flooding which are known to interact with each other. The main sources of flood risk include surface water, groundwater, rivers and other watercourses. As well as events caused by a single source there may be in combination effects, for example, elevated river levels impeding surface water drainage which then results in flooding, where the state of the river and volumes of surface water in isolation would not have been problematic. Flooding from all these sources is expected to increase in frequency or severity as a result of climate change.
The potential for surface water flooding is predicted in most of Hertfordshire’s major settlements, with approximately 53,400 dwellings at risk2. In relation to fluvial flooding in Hertfordshire, 8,017 dwellings fall in Flood Zone 2 (1 in 1000 chance of flooding in any year) and 4,879 in Flood Zone 3 (1 in 100 chance in any year). Significant levels of fluvial flood risk are seen in the south and south eastern parts of the county in particular.
The presence of the chalk aquifer in Hertfordshire and other underground water bearing areas such as the river gravel deposits mean that there is potential for groundwater flooding in Hertfordshire. There are confirmed cases, both widespread and in settlements known to be at particular risk. The mapping of Areas Susceptible to Groundwater Flooding is based on 1 kilometre squares where the percentage of the area where there is the potential for groundwater emergence is above 25%. The majority of Hertfordshire is not shown to be at risk above this level, with very few kilometre squares with a percentage greater than 50%.
Hertfordshire’s LFRMS
The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (‘the Act’) requires Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) to produce a Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS). These strategies must be consistent with the National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy. They will set out a vision for the management of flood risk and although the Act specifies some of the key elements that must be included in the LFRMS, it is intended that they will be locally specific, reflecting key local issues and enabling communities to be more involved in decision-making regarding flood risk management.
The Act defines local flood risk as flood risk from:
Surface runoff. Groundwater. Ordinary watercourses (those that do not form part of a ‘main river’). It requires LFRMSs to specify:
The risk management authorities within the LLFA’s area. The flood and coastal erosion risk management functions that may be exercised by those authorities in relation to the area.
The assessment of local flood risk for the purpose of the strategy. The objectives for managing local flood risk (including any objectives included in the authority’s flood risk management plan prepared in accordance with the Flood Risk Regulations 2009).
The measures proposed to achieve those objectives.
How and when the measures are expected to be implemented.
1Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for Hertfordshire 2013-2016 http://www.hertsdirect.org/docs/pdf/f/hertslfrmsall.pdf 2 Hertfordshire County Council Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (June 2011) Agenda Pack 295 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS SEA Scoping Report 2 April 2016 The costs and benefits of those measures, and how they are to be paid for.
How and when the strategy is to be reviewed. How the strategy contributes to the achievement of wider environmental objectives. LLFAs must consult risk management authorities that may be affected by the strategy (including those in Wales, if relevant) as well as the general public about its LFRMS.
Hertfordshire County Council is currently in the early stages of reviewing the existing LFRMS. Once adopted, the revised Strategy will replace the current LFRMS.
The review of the LFRMS is likely to include3:
Prioritisation of investment in flood risk management projects; Relationship with activities and plans by risk management authorities; Relationship with land use planning and surface water drainage; Interaction between highway drainage and surface water drainage systems;
Present and future influences on flood risk, including changes to severe weather events; Actions to ensure riparian owners are informed of their statutory responsibilities; Ways in which communities and property owners can increase resilience to flood events; Management of flood risk management assets by risk management authorities; Criteria and proportional responses to a flooding event; Promoting sustainable development that takes flood risk into account; and Planning for the impacts of climate change on the frequency, impact and severity of severe weather events.
Strategic Environmental Assessment
SEA is a statutory assessment process, required under the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations (the SEA Regulations, Statutory Instrument 2004, No 1633) which provide the legislative mechanism for transposing into UK law the European Directive 2001/42/EC ‘on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment’ (the SEA Directive). The SEA Directive and Regulations require formal strategic environmental assessment of plans and programmes which are likely to have significant effects (either positive or negative) on the environment. Annex II(2) of the SEA Directive sets out the criteria for determining significant effects and includes “effects on areas or landscapes which have a recognised national, community or international protection status.”
SEA should be undertaken iteratively, as the plan is progressed, and involves evaluating the likely significant environmental effects of implementing the plan and of reasonable alternatives to the plan. The aim is that environmental considerations can be integrated into the production of the plan in order to improve its overall sustainability performance.
Guidance on the production of LFRMSs4 refers to the need for them to be subject to SEA, stating that “the Local FRM Strategy is likely to require statutory SEA, but this requirement is something the LLFA must consider”. Hertfordshire County Council considers that its emerging LFRMS does require SEA. It is also noted that the guidance recognises that “LLFAs should take a proportionate approach to applying SEA to local strategies particularly when environmental effects are not evident in the early stages of plan development. As the detail of plans develops, SEA should be reviewed”.
3 Based on information provided by Hertfordshire County Council on the scope and issues of the LRFMS review 4 Local Government Association (2011) Framework to Assist the Development of the Local Strategy for Flood Risk Management Agenda Pack 296 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS SEA Scoping Report 3 April 2016 Equalities Impact Assessment
The Equality Act came into force on 1st October 2010 and brought together previous discrimination laws under one piece of legislation. The Act introduced a requirement for Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA), seeking to protect people from discrimination on the basis of the following identified ‘protected characteristics’:
Age. Disability. Gender reassignment. Marriage and civil partnership. Pregnancy and maternity. Race. Religion or belief.
Sex. Sexual orientation. The requirement to undertake formal Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) of plans was introduced in the Equality Act 2010, but was abolished in 2012 as part of a Government bid to reduce bureaucracy. Despite this, authorities are still required to have regard to the provisions of the Equality Act, namely the Public Sector Duty which requires public authorities to have due regard for equalities considerations when exercising their functions.
In fulfilling this duty, many authorities still find it useful to produce a written record of equalities issues having been specifically considered. Therefore, the SEA for the LFRMS will also incorporate the requirements of an EqIA. Annex 1 of the SEA Directive specifically refers to ‘population’ and ‘human health’ as two of the topics for which the significant effects of a plan or programme need to be assessed. As such, the SEA will present joint outputs at each stage (i.e. an overall integrated SEA incorporating EqIA).
Structure of the Scoping Report
This chapter (Chapter 1) has described the background to the production of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS and the requirement to undertake SEA. The remainder of this report is structured into the following sections:
Chapter 2 describes the approach that is being taken to the SEA of the LFRMS and outlines the tasks involved.
Chapter 3 presents the review of plans, policies and programmes of relevance to the SEA of the LFRMS (this is supported by more detailed information in Appendix 1).
Chapter 4 presents the baseline information which will inform the assessment of the LFRMS measures and reasonable alternatives and identifies the key environmental issues and problems in Hertfordshire of relevance to the LFRMS.
Chapter 5 presents the SEA framework that will be used for the assessment of the LFRMS and reasonable alternatives and outlines the broad approach that will be taken to the later stages of the SEA.
Chapter 6 describes the next steps that will be undertaken in the SEA of the LFRMS.
Agenda Pack 297 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS SEA Scoping Report 4 April 2016 2 SEA Process and Methodology
This chapter describes the approach that will be taken to the SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS and outlines the tasks that have been undertaken during the scoping stage.
Stages in the SEA Process
There are two main outputs of the SEA – a scoping report and an environmental report. The SEA process comprises a number of stages, with scoping (the ‘information gathering stage’) being Stage A:
Stage A: Setting the context and objectives, establishing the baseline and deciding on the scope.
Stage B: Developing and refining options (i.e. reasonable alternatives) and assessing effects. Stage C: Preparing the environmental report.
Stage D: Consulting on the preferred options of the plan and the environmental report. Stage E: Monitoring the significant effects of implementing the plan. This report presents the findings of the scoping stage of the SEA (Stage A), which involves the following key tasks:
A1: Identifying other relevant policies, plans and programmes and sustainability objectives. A2: Collecting baseline information. A3: Identifying sustainability issues and problems.
A4: Developing the SEA framework. A5: Consulting on the scope of the SEA. Stages B-E of the SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS will be undertaken at a later stage and reported on separately.
A1: Identifying other relevant policies, plans and programmes and sustainability objectives This task is relevant to both the development of the LFRMS itself and the SEA process - the LFRMS should reflect national policy objectives and should also relate to the policy context set by other plans. In addition, the review of other plans, policies and programmes provides the policy context within which the SEA is being undertaken.
A matrix has been compiled, listing the various plans, policies and programmes that are of relevance to the LFRMS at the international, national, sub-national and local levels. Each plan, policy or programme has been reviewed and its content and key objectives described. Consideration has then been given to the implications of each plan, policy or programme for Hertfordshire’s emerging LFRMS and the SEA.
The review of plans, policies and programmes is summarised in Chapter 3 of this report and the detailed matrix can be found in Appendix 1. It should help to identify any potential conflicts or synergies between the emerging reviewed LFRMS and other plans, policies and programmes.
A2: Collecting baseline information This task was undertaken by drawing on a variety of publications and data sources relating to Hertfordshire, with the relevant information being compiled to present an up-to-date picture of the county. Data sources were reviewed in order to ensure that the information drawn from them Agenda Pack 298 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS SEA Scoping Report 5 April 2016 is as recent as possible and care has been taken to only describe those aspects of the environmental baseline that will be of relevance when assessing the effects of measures in the LFRMS. In light of the nature of the strategy being subject to SEA, particular attention was paid to information about the water environment and flood risk in order to ensure that it is of an appropriate level of detail for the SEA of the LFRMS, with sources such as Hertfordshire’s Local Flood Risk Management Strategy 2013-2016 being drawn from.
The baseline information for the SEA of the LFRMS is presented in Chapter 4 of this report.
A3: Identifying sustainability issues and problems By identifying the key sustainability issues and problems relevant to Hertfordshire, it is possible to ensure that the LFRMS addresses these as far as possible and that opportunities are taken to bring about environmental improvements through the implementation of the LFRMS.
The key relevant sustainability issues for Hertfordshire have been identified through the review of plans, policies and programmes and the collation of baseline information and are presented in Chapter 4 of this report.
A4: Developing the SEA framework Although not a requirement of the SEA Directive, the development of an SEA framework provides a recognised way in which the likely sustainability effects of a plan can be assessed and described. The framework consists of a number of SEA objectives, which are drawn from the key environmental issues facing Hertfordshire (presented in Chapter 4).
During the later stages of the SEA, the measures included in the LFRMS will be assessed individually against each of the SEA objectives so that any likely significant environmental effects of the LFRMS (both positive and negative) can be identified and appropriate mitigation and monitoring measures can be devised.
The SEA framework that will be used in the assessment of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS is set out in Chapter 5, along with an outline of the broad approach that will be taken to the later stages of the SEA.
A5: Consulting on the scope of the SEA In line with the requirements of the SEA Directive, this scoping report will be made available to the three statutory consultees (the Environment Agency, Natural England and Historic England) for a period of consultation. The minimum statutory consultation time for a Scoping Report is five weeks.
How will the Scoping Report be used?
This Scoping Report has been produced in order to allow the statutory authorities and other interested parties to make comments on the scope of the SEA. Any significant gaps in the information gathered can be identified and steps taken to remedy these before the LFRMS is developed further. The suitability of the SEA objectives for carrying out the assessment, and their consistency with other plans and programmes, can also be considered by consultees.
Agenda Pack 299 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS SEA Scoping Report 6 April 2016 3 Relevant Plans and Policies
As described in Chapter 2, a review of plans, policies and programmes of relevance to the LFRMS has been carried out in order to establish the policy context for the SEA and to ensure that the emerging LFRMS complies with other relevant international, national, sub-national and local policy.
A wide range of plans, policies and programmes was reviewed as part of this process. The purpose of this review was to:
Identify environmental objectives which should be reflected in the LFRMS and the SEA. Identify any factors that might influence the preparation of the LFRMS and inform the SEA.
Consider whether there are any potential incompatibilities between plans, policies and programmes that will need to be taken into account in both the LFRMS and the SEA.
When considering the plans, policies and programmes included in the review it is important to note that:
The context will be dynamic because other relevant plans, policies and programmes are likely to emerge during the LFRMS preparation period which will need to be considered through the assessment process. If a significant amount of time passes between stages in the SEA process, it will therefore be necessary to update the review.
Plans, policies and programmes range from those at the international level (such as European Directives) to the local level (such as documents produced at the District level within Hertfordshire, i.e. Local Plans).
While the list of plans, policies and programmes is extensive, it is not, and can never be, fully exhaustive. The review seeks to identify those plans, policies and programmes that are most relevant to the LFRMS.
The international, national, sub-national and local policies, plans and programmes considered in the review are listed in Table 3.1 below. The full details of each document and how it relates to the LFRMS and the SEA can be found in Appendix 1.
Table 3.1 Plans, Policies and Programmes of Relevance to the SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS
Plan, Policy or Programme
International
SEA Directive (2001) Directive 2001/42/EC
The Floods Directive (2007) Directive 2007/60/EC
Groundwater Directive (2006) Directive 2006/118/EC
Water Framework Directive (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC
Birds Directive (2009) Directive 2009/147/EC is a codified version of Directive 79/409/EEC as amended
The Habitats Directive (1992) Directive 92/43/EEC
European Landscape Convention (Florence, 2002)
Agenda Pack 300 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS SEA Scoping Report 7 April 2016 European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Valletta, 1992) Revision of the 1985 Granada Convention
Aarhus Convention (1998)
National
Natural Environment White Paper - The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature (2012) Defra
Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
Working with the Grain of Nature: A Biodiversity Strategy for England (2011) Defra
National Strategy for Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (2011) Defra and the Environment Agency
Water for Life (2011) Defra
Guidance for risk management authorities on sustainable development in relation to their flood and coastal erosion risk management functions (2011) Defra
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2010)
Underground, Under Threat: The state of groundwater in England and Wales (2010) Environment Agency
Flood and Water Management Act (2010)
Safeguarding our Soils, A Strategy for England (2009) Defra
Water for People and the Environment; Water Resources Strategy for England and Wales (2009) Environment Agency
The Flood Risk Regulations (2009)
Adapting to Climate Change in England. A Framework for Action (2008) Defra
Future Water, The Government’s Water Strategy for England (2008) Defra
Climate Change UK Programme: Tomorrow’s Climate Today’s Challenge (2006) Defra
Contaminated Land (England) Regulations (2006)
Securing the Future: Delivering the Sustainable Development Strategy (2005) Defra
The Water Act (2014)
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) (2002) Environment Agency
Directing the Flow: Priorities for Future Water Policy (2002) Defra
The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future (2001) Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Agenda Pack 301 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS SEA Scoping Report 8 April 2016
The National Adaptation Programme – Making the Country Resilient to a Changing Climate (Defra, 2013)
Water for People and the Environment: Water Resources Strategy for England and Wales (Environment Agency, 2009)
DEFRA (2011) Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services
Sub-National
Anglian River Basin District Management Plan, 2015
Thames River Basin District Management Plan, 2015
Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan Summary Report, Environment Agency, December 2009
Great Ouse Catchment Flood Management Plan Summary Report, Environment Agency, January 2011
National Character Area profiles (2012-2014) Natural England
County level
Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment for Hertfordshire (PFRA) June 2011 Hertfordshire County Council
Hertfordshire Health Profile (2015) Public Health England
Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for Hertfordshire (2011) Hertfordshire County Council
Hertfordshire Waste Development Framework, Waste Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2011-2026(2012)
Hertfordshire Sustainable Community Strategy Hertfordshire 2012: A brighter future
Climate Change Strategic Framework for Hertfordshire(2009)
SuDS Design Guidance for Hertfordshire (March 2015)
Local level
Emerging Surface Water Management Plans (Watford, St. Albans and others as developed)
Strategic Flood Risk Assessments
Local Plans
The relationships between the key pieces of legislation, plans and strategies in relation to flood risk management in Hertfordshire are illustrated in Figure 3.1 overleaf.
Agenda Pack 302 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS SEA Scoping Report 9 April 2016 Figure 3.1: Relationships between the LFRMS and selected other Plans, Policies and Programmes
Water Framework Directive (2000) European Floods Directive (2007)
National Flood and Coastal National Planning Policy Thames River Basin Erosion Risk Management Flood and Water Framework (2012) Management Act Management Plan (2015) Strategy (2011) Supersedes PPS25: (2010) Environment Agency Environment Agency Development and Flood Risk Anglian River Basin Management Plan (2015) Environment Agency Flood Risk Regulations Strategic Flood Risk (2009) Assessments for Hertfordshire have been produced individually at the District level River Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan (2009) Environment Agency Great Ouse Catchment Flood Management Plan (2011) Environment Agency
Watford Surface Water Management Plan Hertfordshire Preliminary Flood HERTFORDSHIRE LOCAL FLOOD RISK (2011) Risk Assessment (2011) MANAGEMENT STRATEGY St Albans Surface Water Management Plan Hertfordshire Flood Risk Hertfordshire County Council (2011) Management Strategy (2013- 2016)
Strategic Environmental AgendaAssessment Pack (SEA) 303 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS SEA Scoping Report 10 April 2016 Summary of Review of Plans, Policies and Programmes
Many of the plans, policies and programmes that have been reviewed are indirectly relevant to the LFRMS, for example those that relate to the protection of natural assets including biodiversity and soils. Those that are most directly relevant are summarised below:
The Floods Directive 2007/60/EC (2007) requires EU member states to assess if all water courses and coast lines are at risk from flooding, to map the flood extent and assets and humans at risk in these areas and to take adequate and co-ordinated measures to reduce this flood risk.
The Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (2000) provides a framework committing EU member states to the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. There is a requirement to co-ordinate the delivery of the WFD and the Floods Directive (see above), and the Environment Agency is responsible for this in England and Wales. Flood and Water Management Act (2010) – This Act sets out the statutory requirement for Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) such as Hertfordshire County Council to produce a strategy for managing local flood risk. It is therefore the legal basis for the production of Hertfordshire‘s LFRMS.
National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy (2011) – The Flood and Water Management Act requires all LFRMSs to be in conformity with this Strategy, which encourages more effective risk management by enabling people, communities, business, infrastructure operators and the public sector to work together to achieve better understanding of the risks of flooding both, nationally and locally, so that investment in risk management can be prioritised more effectively. As such, Hertfordshire‘s LFRMS must have regard to the contents of the Strategy.
National Planning Policy Framework (2012) – The NPPF sets out the considerations that local planning authorities need to take account of in order to avoid new development increasing flood risk. The measures included in the emerging LFRMS will need to have regard to this national level policy. The information provided in the NPPF is supplemented by the Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) which provides additional guidance to local planning authorities to ensure the effective implementation of the planning policy set out in the NPPF on development in areas at risk of flooding. The technical guidance retains key elements of Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 25: Development and Flood Risk.
Surface Water Management Plans – These documents provide important evidence relating to flood risk from surface water. Along with the LFRMS, these documents are a key tool for the management of flood risk in that area.
Local Plans – These plans, produced at the District level within Hertfordshire (apart from the Minerals and Waste Local Plan and Local Transport Plan which are produced at County level), provide the overarching approach to future development within the county, and any proposals within the LFRMS must have regard to the policies within the relevant Local Plan(s). Of particular relevance will be policies specifically relating to climate change and flood risk management.
Agenda Pack 304 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 11 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report 4 Baseline Information and Key Environmental Issues
Baseline Information
The SEA Directive requires the consideration of likely significant effects on the environment, including on biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between these factors. This list of issues is often referred to as the ‘SEA topics’.
The sections below set out the baseline information and any local trends that can be identified from a range of data sources in relation to each of the above topics. At the end of each section, the ways in which Hertfordshire’s LFRMS could potentially affect each topic are summarised. Note that some topics (such as population and human health and biodiversity, flora and fauna) have been grouped together as there is a significant amount of crossover between these topics in terms of the relevant data and the key environmental issues. In addition, one of the SEA topics, ‘air’, has been scoped out as it is not considered to be relevant to the SEA of the LFRMS - measures of the type that will be included in the LFRMS in order to manage local flood risk are not expected to have any effect on local air quality.
Hertfordshire County Geographical Context
Hertfordshire is a landlocked county covering an area of approximately 1,642 km2. The county includes ten districts/boroughs: Broxbourne; Stevenage; Welwyn Hatfield; Hertsmere; Dacorum; North Hertfordshire; St. Albans City and District; Three Rivers; Watford and East Hertfordshire.
Hertfordshire has a particularly high concentration of planned and designed twentieth century urban greenspace assets, including the world’s first garden city at Letchworth, Welwyn Garden City, and a number of new towns such as Hemel Hempstead, Stevenage and Hatfield. All are important to green infrastructure as they included greenspace provision as an integral part of the settlement layout and development configuration5. As of March 2014, an area of 847 km2, or 51.6% of the county, was designated Green Belt6.
Environmental Baseline Data
Biodiversity, flora and fauna
There are over 80 key national and international statutory nature sites within Hertfordshire7. These include the Lea Valley Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site, Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Wormley-Hoddesdonpark Woods SAC. Broxbourne Wood (which forms part of Wormley-Hoddesdonpark Woods SAC) is Hertfordshire’s only National Nature Reserve (NNR). There are also 43 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) (a national designation), 32 Local Nature Reserves, 34 Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trust Nature Reserves, 11 Woodland Trust sites and 1 Butterfly Conservation site.
5 LUC (2011) Hertfordshire Strategic Green Infrastructure Plan (Incorporating the GreenArc area), http://www.hertsdirect.org/docs/pdf/s/SHiP.pdf 6 Hertfordshire County Council (2014) Hertfordshire Local Information System: Environment, Green Belt, http://www.hertslis.org/env/landprem/grenbel/ 7 Hertfordshire Management Service (Publication date unknown) Landscape and Biodiversity, http://www.hertslink.org/buildingfutures/content/migrated/obdocs/pdfs/lanbiomod2011.pdf Agenda Pack 305 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 12 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report There are 48 Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs) across England8. The Hertfordshire LNP ‘Planning for biodiversity and the natural environment in Hertfordshire-guiding principles’ publication9, provides a summary of the six most important high level principles in relation to planning and biodiversity and provides signposting to guidance and advice in other documents.
One of the key objectives of the Hertfordshire LNP includes ‘establishing resilient ecological networks supporting healthy well-functioning ecosystems and providing a range of benefits for wildlife and people’. Its ambition is for ‘restored and connected habitats across the whole county, creating resilient wildlife populations and allowing wildlife to adapt to climate change and other pressures’. This reflects the vision and spirit of the Natural Environment White Paper.
Between 2011 and 2013, the LNP and Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trust undertook a new Hertfordshire habitat inventory and produced a series of potential habitat network maps. Combined with the guidance on applying inventory, the research is useful in both development management and plan-making contexts10.
Hertfordshire has a total of 359 km2 of habitat identified, equating to approximately 22% of the total county area. The findings on individual habitat networks and conditions are summarised below11.
Woodland is the most common habitat in Hertfordshire, giving it the strongest potential for network connectivity. It accounts for 10% of the land cover. However, less than half of this is able to be classed as semi-natural and only 38.7 km2 (less than one-quarter of Hertfordshire’s woodland) is ancient. Wooded habitats have a scattered distribution throughout the whole county but are particularly concentrated within the Hornbeams & Heaths area in the central and south.
Neutral grassland is the second most common habitat, totalling approximately half of the woodland cover. However, only 2.8 km2 of habitat is considered to be of decent quality. The semi-improved neutral grassland category should be treated cautiously. There is probably a mixture of genuinely reasonable quality sites and poorer quality sites. It also potentially contains a large number of semi-improved acid or chalk grassland sites that are not of high enough quality to distinguish between them. The results therefore show an overly optimistic picture of the total neutral grassland resource.
Chalk grassland is highly restricted to the chalk escarpment in the north between Royston and Tring, although outliers occur elsewhere where the underlying chalk geology reaches the surface. There are only a handful of good sized patches left, the most significant being Therfield Heath. The majority of sites and the best potential for connectivity are along the chalk escarpment, with a particular priority around the Therfield Heath vicinity. Chalk grassland elsewhere is generally rare, of small patch size and extremely isolated from other patches. Whilst these are an important natural resource in their own right, there is little potential to connect them as part of a chalk grassland network.
Heathland and Chalk grassland are the rarest and most threatened habitats. Heathland is now all but wiped out, with just 0.13 km2 remaining, while there is just 1.48 km2 of high quality Chalk grassland sites remaining.
Acid open habitats are the second most vulnerable and poorly connected habitat after chalk grassland. This is despite merging heathland with acid grassland. The distribution of acid grassland is patchy within the county but clearly concentrated in the Hornbeams and Heaths, around Ashridge Estate and Berkhamsted Common in the north west and Patmore Heath in the east, with lots of potential for improving network connectivity. The soils and open nature of the
8Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2011) The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature, White Paper, London https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228842/8082.pdf 9 Hertfordshire Local Nature Partnership (2014) Planning for biodiversity and the natural environment in Hertfordshire-guiding principles, http://www.hertswildlifetrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/LNPs%20guiding%20principles%20for%20LPAs%20final%20paper%2020% 2002%2014.pdf 10 Hertfordshire Local Nature Partnership and Middlesex Wildlife Trust (2014) Guidance on applying ‘Hertfordshire’s Ecological Networks’ within the planning system, Hertfordshire 11 Hertfordshire Local Nature Partnership and Middlesex Wildlife Trust (2014) Hertfordshire’s Ecological Networks: A report on the current situation and priorities for restoration, Hertfordshire Agenda Pack 306 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 13 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report wooded area around the Ashridge Estate still support fragments of acid open habitats and rare species associated with them. It is a high priority to restore open acid habitats within this area.
Wetland habitats are found throughout the river valleys but are notably most concentrated along the Stort in the east and parts of the Lea and Mimram. Old gravel pits in the Lea and the Colne are very important sites for wetland birds. The nationally and internationally important open water bodies at Tring and in the Colne and Lea Valleys are particularly obvious and show a good deal of connectivity due to their large size and concentration in those areas. The most impressive network connectivity however is in the Stort Valley where there is a relatively continuous corridor alongside the river and the model shows a lot of high priority potential between these patches. Conversely, apart from small parts of the Mimram and a few others, there is generally very little current or modelled potential wetland habitat connectivity along the important chalk river tributaries of the Lea or Colne. This highlights one of the reasons why chalk river ecosystems in Hertfordshire are failing. Without significant habitat creation alongside these rivers, they will continue to be highly vulnerable to erosion and diffuse pollution, as well as being unable to support their full range of flora and fauna.
Specific animal and plant species have been well surveyed and monitored in Hertfordshire over the past 10 years. The Hertfordshire Quality of Life Report12 uses wildlife and habitat indicators to reflect current trends in the county’s biodiversity resource, and summarises the results of the most important survey and monitoring projects, including:
Water Voles: At least 79 sites were surveyed in 2013, and of these 24 definitely had water voles, 7 showed signs that could have been water voles while 48 were negative. Known water vole distribution in Hertfordshire in 2013 continues be much the same as in the previous two years. Water voles remain present throughout the Chess, Mimram and Codicote Bottom. There remain water voles on the Purwell and the Rhee north of Ashwell along the border with Bedfordshire but no records from the Ivel, Hiz or the Oughton within Hertfordshire.
Birds: The British Trust for Ornithology’s (BTO) Breeding Birds Survey (BBS) provides data on bird population changes. In Hertfordshire, 94 BBS plots were surveyed in 2009. The following data is from the 2010 BBS report (BTO)13 and the 2009 Hertfordshire Bird Report14.
- skylark - in Hertfordshire, numbers declined by 13% (2008-2009). - song thrush- in Hertfordshire, numbers declined by 14% (2008-2009). - house sparrow -in Hertfordshire, numbers declined by 5% (2008-2009).
Wildlife Sites: The Wildlife Sites project has stated that 45% of all Wildlife Site area is covered by one of the land management grant schemes – English Woodland Grant Scheme, Countryside Stewardship, Entry Level and Higher Level Stewardship. It would appear that many of the better remaining grassland Wildlife Sites are covered by a scheme – although this may not always reflect ecology.
Condition of Wildlife Sites LNC-B 160.00: According to the Government’s measures on improved local biodiversity, the proportion of Local Sites where positive conservation management (PCM) has been or is being implemented during the last five years in 2011/12 was 23.5%. It is important to note that this is a measure only of how many sites are currently known to be in PCM.
Hares: Although 2012 showed a significant drop in numbers, in 2013 hare numbers had returned almost to the levels of the peak of 2004, when high numbers were also recorded nationally.
Butterflies: 2013 was overall a better year for butterflies in Hertfordshire, with the warm dry summer. Comparing 2013 with a baseline calculated using 2005 and 2009 data, of the 35 species measured, 14 have decreased in numbers, while 21 have increased in numbers or remained static. Based on distribution, 18 have increased their range and 8 have decreased, with the others unchanged.
12 http://atlas.hertslis.org/IAS/profiles/profile?profileId=982&geoTypeId=16&geoIds=26 13 Eaton MA, Cuthbert R, Dunn E, Grice PV, Hall C, Hayhow DB, Hearn RD, Holt CA, Knipe A, Marchant JH, Mavor R, Moran NJ, Mukhida F, Musgrove AJ, Noble DG, Oppel S, Risely K, Stroud DA, Toms M & Wotton S (2012). The state of the UK’s birds 2012. RSPB, BTO, WWT, CCW, NE, NIEA, SNH and JNCC. Sandy, Bedfordshire 14 Birds Club (2009) The Hertfordshire Bird Report 2009, http://www.hnhs.org/birds/view_publication.php?id=84&cat=8 Agenda Pack 307 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 14 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species of conservation concern. Dingy Skipper, Grizzled Skipper, White Admiral, Green Hairstreak and Purple Emperor held their own or increased, whilst White-letter Hairstreak showed a decline. A strong colony of Dingy Skipper was found on a brownfield site in the west of the county.
Condition of SSSIs: There are 43 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Latest figures on the condition of SSSIs suggests 51.18% as being in a ‘favourable’ condition, while 46.0% are described as being in unfavourable but recovering condition.15
Depending on the measures to be included in the LFRMS, it could affect biodiversity through construction activities potentially causing disturbance to habitats and species, or through changing land uses, changing water levels or habitat creation and enhancement. A separate Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) will be undertaken to consider the likely effects of the measures in the LFRMS on European designated sites (SACs, SPAs and Ramsar sites).
Population and human health
The latest mid-year population figures for mid-2013 showed that there were 1,140,700 people living in the county16.
Between 2001 and 2011 there were 44,000 more births compared to an overall county population increase of 80,000. Therefore, nearly half the increase in population was due to a net inward migration of people into the county17.
Figure 4.1 below breaks down the population by age bands. The greatest proportion of people are in the 35-50 year old age groups. The proportion of 35-50 year olds and 0-15 year olds are higher than the England average. Most local authorities have broadly similar age profiles to that of the counties across the UK. However, Watford has a higher proportion of 20-40 year olds while Hatfield has a significant student population.
Figure 4.1: 2012 Mid-Year Estimate by Sex and Age Group- Hertfordshire and England
Source: Hertfordshire County Council (2014) Hertfordshire’s Joint Strategic Needs Assessment Summary 2014: Figure 3 Population pyramid comparing Hertfordshire to England http://atlas.hertslis.org/IAS/Custom/Resources/JSNASummaryPDF.pdf
15 Hertfordshire County Council (2014) Hertfordshire Local Information System: Local Profiles - Wildlife & Habitats (Quality of Life Report, 2013), http://atlas.hertslis.org/IAS/profiles/profile?profileId=982&geoTypeId=16&geoIds=26#iasProfileSection5 16 Hertfordshire County Council (2014) Hertfordshire Local Information System: Community Profiles - Summary Profile for Hertfordshire Geo-type, http://atlas.hertslis.org/IAS/profiles/profile?profileId=280&geoTypeId=16&geoIds=26 17 Hertfordshire County Council (2014) Hertfordshire’s Joint Strategic Needs Assessment Summary 2014, http://atlas.hertslis.org/IAS/Custom/Resources/JSNASummaryPDF.pdf
Agenda Pack 308 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 15 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report The population is largely concentrated within Dacorum, East Hertfordshire and St. Albans district authorities18. According to Hertfordshire Local Information System (LIS), the largest settlements in the county are Watford, Stevenage, Hemel Hempstead, St. Albans City, Welwyn Garden City and Cheshunt which all have over 40,000 residents. While the smallest settlements can be found in Bricket, Knebworth, Cuffley, Wheathampstead, Bovingdon and Carpenders Park, which have under 5,000 usual resident population19.
Until 2010, the Working Age Population was defined as males aged 16 to 64 and females aged 16 to 59 in line with the male and female state pension ages of 65 and 60 respectively. From 2010, female pension age is rising gradually to equalise with men at 65 years by November 2018.
At mid-2013, the Office for National Statistics estimated the working age population (males and females aged 16 to 64) of Hertfordshire was 724,200 or 63.49% of the total population. This represents 358,000 (64.10%) males and 366,200 (62.90%) females.
Although the recent recession drove unemployment up across England, Hertfordshire’s employment rate was 77.7% in 2014, compared to 75.5% in the East of England and 71.6% in the UK, for the same year20.
In May 2014, 6.5% of working aged people in Hertfordshire were in receipt of an out of work benefit. This compares to 8.0% in the East of England21. Health
The Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) provides an understanding of the current and future health and social care needs of local communities. According to Hertfordshire’s JSNA Summary 201422, the following broad observations were made:
Life expectancy in Hertfordshire is improving and is higher than the England average, but varies between men and women and between smaller areas according to levels of multiple deprivations.
The life expectancy at birth for a resident in Hertfordshire between 2011 and 2013 was 80.6 years for men and 84.0 years for women. Between 2000-2002 and 2011-2013 life expectancy for men increased by 3.2 years in Hertfordshire.
The principal causes of death in Hertfordshire are: heart disease and stroke, dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, cancers, and respiratory diseases.
In 2012, 61.8% of adults in Hertfordshire were overweight or obese, while 28.6% of children in Year 6 measured were overweight or obese (2,815 pupils).
The majority of people in Hertfordshire see themselves as being in good health and the local population’s sense of their own mental wellbeing has progressively risen in recent years.
Self-reported health - 85% of people in Hertfordshire describe themselves as being in good or very good health which is higher than the rate for England (81.4%). 11% say they are in fair health.
Self-reported mental wellbeing - People in Hertfordshire report higher levels of happiness and satisfaction and lower levels of anxiety and worthlessness than across England as a whole. Hertfordshire’s local quarterly survey has shown a progressive improvement in people’s self- reported mental wellbeing between 2011 and 2013 in all local authorities.
Mental health and self-harm- The number of hospital stays resulting from intentional self-harm has increased in all local authorities in Hertfordshire between 2009 and 2012. North Hertfordshire has seen the biggest rise and in 2012, both they and Hertsmere had significantly
18 Hertfordshire County Council (2014) Hertfordshire Local Information System: Midyear population estimates for Hertfordshire and Districts (all persons), http://atlas.hertslis.org/IAS/dataviews/tabular?viewId=938&geoId=15&subsetId= 19 Hertfordshire County Council (2014) Hertfordshire Local Information System: Midyear population estimates for larger settlements http://atlas.hertslis.org/IAS/dataviews/tabular?viewId=1125&geoId=593&subsetId= 20 Hertfordshire County Council (2014) Hertfordshire Local Information System: Community Profiles -Economy and Employment (Quality of Life Report 2014), http://atlas.hertslis.org/IAS/profiles/profile?profileId=701&geoTypeId=16&geoIds=26 21 Hertfordshire County Council (2014) Hertfordshire Local Information System: Economic Well-being Profile, http://atlas.hertslis.org/IAS/profiles/profile?profileId=99&geoTypeId=
22 Hertfordshire County Council (2014) Hertfordshire’s Joint Strategic Needs Assessment Summary 2014, http://atlas.hertslis.org/IAS/Custom/Resources/JSNASummaryPDF.pdf Agenda Pack 309 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 16 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report higher rates of hospital admissions due to self-harm than the Hertfordshire average. Although East Hertfordshire and St. Albans have the lowest levels of hospital admissions, both local authorities have still seen a gradual rise over these three years23.
In the 2011 census, 3.9% of people in Hertfordshire reported having either bad or very bad health. In comparison, 5.5% of people across England reported that their health was bad or very bad24. Open Space and Recreation
According to Hertfordshire Strategic Green Infrastructure Plan 2011, there is a deficiency in Access to Natural Greenspace (ANG) particularly in East Hertfordshire, North Hertfordshire, Hertsmere, Welwyn Hatfield, Watford and Stevenage. Broxbourne has a proportionally higher than average provision of ANG.
Hertfordshire has an extensive Rights of Way network of over 5,200 paths totalling more than 3,000 km. It is not possible to provide a detailed map of this here, but one is available from Hertfordshire County Council’s website25.
The growing population and increasing population density are indicative of the pressure for development within Hertfordshire, in particular for new housing. The LFRMS will affect the health and wellbeing of the local population by influencing the extent that people in Hertfordshire perceive themselves to be at risk of flooding, which can have a detrimental effect on mental health and wellbeing. In addition, the LFRMS and the measures included within it will affect the extent to which health-related services and facilities (such as health centres and open space used for recreation) are at risk from flooding.
Water Resources and Flooding Hertfordshire has 20 watercourses classed as ‘Main Rivers’:
Bulbourne Gade
Chess Colne Ver Hartsbourne Tykeswater Mimmshall Brook Potters Bar Brook Turkey Brook Cuffley Brook Rags Brook
Lee Mimram Beane Purwell Rib
23 Hertfordshire County Council (2014) Hertfordshire Local Information System: Local Profiles - Health (Quality of Life Report, 2013), http://atlas.hertslis.org/IAS/profiles/profile?profileId=660&geoTypeId=16&geoIds=26
24 Hertfordshire Quality of Life Report 2014 http://www.hertslis.org/env/qualityoflife/qolreport/ 25 Hertfordshire County Council (2015) Rights of way Map http://webmaps.hertsdirect.org/row/row.htm Agenda Pack 310 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 17 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Wuin
Ash Stort Other rivers, streams, ditches, drains, culverts etc., are classified as an ‘ordinary watercourse’ which may also contribute to flood risk within the county.
There are also 24 reservoirs within Hertfordshire which hold more than 25,000 cubic metres of water (the capacity at which reservoirs are regulated).
The majority of Hertfordshire lies within the Thames Catchment Area, which covers a total area of 16,133 km2 from Swindon in the west to Crawley in the south. St Albans, Watford, Hatfield, Welwyn Garden City, Hemel Hempstead, Hertford, Ware and Stevenage are situated within the Thames Catchment Area. The remainder of Hertfordshire is situated within the Anglian River Basin, which covers an area of 27,888 km2 from Lincoln in the north to Chelmsford in the south. Letchworth Garden City, Hitchin and Royston are situated within the Anglian River Basin. Both Catchment Areas have established River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) which set out various objectives relating to ecological improvements, improvements and groundwater conditions.
The Environment Agency has published a number of Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs) that consider all types of inland flooding, from rivers, groundwater, surface water and tidal flooding across individual river catchments that fall within specific river basin districts. There are three CFMPs that fall within the Thames River Basin District and ten that fall within the Anglian River Basin District. Hertfordshire is covered by The Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan (2015) and The Great Ouse Catchment Flood Management Plan (2015).
Hertfordshire is at risk from a variety of sources of flooding, including groundwater, surface water, river flooding (fluvial), sewer or highway flooding, and canal and reservoir flooding, each of which are covered in more detail below 26.
Much of Hertfordshire is underlain by chalk, with the chalk aquifer being the most important source of groundwater in the county. The presence of the chalk aquifer in Hertfordshire and other underground water bearing areas such as the river gravel deposits mean that there is potential for groundwater flooding in Hertfordshire. Areas with the potential for groundwater emergence are shown by the Areas Susceptible to Groundwater Flooding (AStGF) maps. The AStGF is based on 1 kilometre squares where the percentage of the area where there is the potential for groundwater emergence is above 25%. The majority of Hertfordshire is not shown to be at risk above this level.
Many of Hertfordshire’s settlements are predicted to be affected by surface water flooding. Over 53,000 properties are in areas where there is potential for surface water flooding up to 0.3 m in an event which has a 0.5% probability (1 in 200 chance) of occurring in any year27.
Significant levels of fluvial flood risk are seen in the south and south eastern parts of the county. Approximately 8,000 dwellings fall within Flood Zone 2 and 4,800 dwellings in Flood Zone 3.
Between 1997 and 2007 there were 291 records of sewer flooding within Hertfordshire, of which 77 were attributed to surface water and 25 to combined sewers.
The Canal and Rivers Trust (formerly British Waterways) is currently investigating the potential for flooding from the canal network. Current records indicate only two minor breach events on record within Hertfordshire on the Grand Union Canal. Dacorum Borough Council’s Level 2 SFRA includes an assessment of potential flood risk associated with a raised section of the Grand Union Canal. It is considered that there is no significant flood risk associated expressly with the canals in Hertfordshire. The Environment Agency has produced reservoir maps to show the largest area that might be flooded if a reservoir that holds over 10,000 cubic metres of water were to fail. The chance of reservoir failure is very unlikely as reservoirs are regularly inspected and there is an extremely good safety record in the UK with no loss of life due to reservoir flooding since 1925.
26 Hertfordshire County Council (2011) Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for Hertfordshire 2013 – 2016: Strategy (Issues, Vision and Principles), Part 1 of 4, http://www.hertsdirect.org/docs/pdf/f/hertslfrmsall.pdf 27 Hertfordshire County Council Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (June 2011) Agenda Pack 311 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 18 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Changes in climatic conditions can affect local flood risk in several ways; however, impacts will depend on local conditions and vulnerability. Wetter winters and more intense rainfall may increase river flooding in both rural and urban catchments. More intense rainfall causes greater surface runoff, increasing localised flooding and erosion, which may increase pressure on drains, sewers and water quality. Storm intensity in summer could increase even in drier summers, increasing the risk arising from unexpected flash flooding.
Wetter winters also increase the risk of flooding from groundwater-bearing chalk aquifers across the county but it is difficult to predict in detail as much depends on the nature of the rainfall. Many drainage systems in the county have been modified to manage water levels and could help in adapting locally to some impacts of future climate on flooding. However, changing intensity of weather patterns may mean that these assets may need to be managed differently.
Currently, the rivers Ash, Beane, Upper Colne, Lee, Rib, Purwell and The Stort have been subjected to climate change flood modelling. The Environment Agency is currently undertaking new modelling studies for some of the Stort Tributaries; Puckeridge, Gade & Bulbourne and the Shonks Mill area of Roding. Once these are completed, 1 in 20 year outlines and climate change outlines will be available for these areas.
The LFRMS aims to reduce local flood risk in Hertfordshire, and thereby the risk facing material assets such as residential properties, employment sites, community facilities, waste management facilities and transport infrastructure that can be damaged by flooding. Measures included in the LFRMS may also have implications for the location and design of forthcoming development.
Water Quality
The EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) looks at the ecological health of both groundwater and surface water with the aim of achieving ‘good ecological status’ by 2027, and to ensure that there is no deterioration from existing statuses. There are 41 water bodies within Hertfordshire; in 2013:
9.8% of the water bodies were classified as ‘good’.
36.6% of the water bodies were classified as moderate; these include the Upper Rib and the Lower Ash.
41.5% of the water bodies were classified as poor; these include the River Quin and the Lee from Luton Hoo Lakes to Hertford.
4.9% of Hertfordshire’s water bodies were classified as bad; these include the Stort Navigation through Bishops Stortford.
7.3% of the water bodies are classified as not yet assessed. Hertfordshire is recognised as having one of the highest rates of water consumption in the country, at 9% higher than the England and Wales average. In 2011, the average non-metered per capita consumption was 173 litres per person per day and 152 litres per person per day for metered residents28.
Affinity Water carries out over 200,000 water quality tests a year. Of those measured against the Drinking Water Inspectorate’s standards, 99.98% were compliant.
Measures included in the LFRMS are likely to be designed for the primary purpose of managing local flood risk in Hertfordshire. Water quality can be affected by flooding incidents; therefore the management of flood risk can influence water quality. The promotion of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) in the LFRMS will help to improve the quality of surface water discharging from development sites.
28 Green our Herts (2015) Water Environment, http://greenourherts.org.uk/page/?id=57449 Agenda Pack 312 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 19 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Climate change
Hertfordshire and Central England Temperature (CET) records show a long term warming trend. Hertfordshire experiences lower than average rainfall and it is likely that climate change will exacerbate this. This could lead to increased water stress across the county.
The UKCP0929 climate projections for the East of England, for the 2050s under a medium emissions scenario sets out the following30:
Under medium emissions, the central estimate of increase in winter mean temperature is 2.2ºC; it is very unlikely to be less than 1.1ºC and is very unlikely to be more than 3.4ºC. A wider range of uncertainty is from 0.9ºC to 3.8ºC.
Under medium emissions, the central estimate of increase in summer mean temperature is 2.5ºC; it is very unlikely to be less than 1.2ºC and is very unlikely to be more than 4.3ºC. A wider range of uncertainty is from 1ºC to 4.8ºC.
Under medium emissions, the central estimate of increase in summer mean daily maximum temperature is 3.4ºC; it is very unlikely to be less than 1.3ºC and is very unlikely to be more than 6ºC. A wider range of uncertainty is from 1.1ºC to 6.8ºC.
Under medium emissions, the central estimate of increase in summer mean daily minimum temperature is 2.7ºC; it is very unlikely to be less than 1.2ºC and is very unlikely to be more than 4.7ºC. A wider range of uncertainty is from 1.1ºC to 5.3ºC.
Under medium emissions, the central estimate of change in annual mean precipitation is 0%; it is very unlikely to be less than -5% and is very unlikely to be more than 5%. A wider range of uncertainty is from -5% to 6%.
Under medium emissions, the central estimate of change in winter mean precipitation is 14%; it is very unlikely to be less than 3% and is very unlikely to be more than 31%. A wider range of uncertainty is from 1% to 35%.
Under medium emissions, the central estimate of change in summer mean precipitation is - 17%; it is very unlikely to be less than -38% and is very unlikely to be more than 6%. A wider range of uncertainty is from -40% to 14%.
This shows that although overall rainfall is not projected to change, the distribution of rainfall will decrease in summer and increase in winter. Summer and winter mean temperatures are projected to increase overall.
In 2012-13, Hertfordshire County produced 147,087 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions (tonnes
CO2 e). This is down from 175,477 tonnes CO2 e in 2010-11, although three local authorities do not produce this data and as such, this figure is likely to be higher. There is a Local Area
Agreement (LAA) target to reduce per capita CO2 emissions in Hertfordshire by 9.1% between 2005 and 2011. The county has reduced emissions by 14.9% since 2005, exceeding the LAA target. This is based on the revised 2005 data and 2011 data released in 201331.
Climate change is likely to have a direct effect on local flood risk as a result of changes in patterns of precipitation and more frequent extreme weather events. The LFRMS, along with other plans and strategies will help Hertfordshire County Council to adapt to and mitigate these impacts by developing a strategy for dealing with increasing flood risk.
29 Note that an update to the projections, UKCP18, is expected and the updated projections will be taken into account in this SEA when they become available – see: http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/24125 30 http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/23954?emission=medium 31 Hertfordshire County Council (2014) Hertfordshire Local Information System: Local Profiles - Climate Change (Quality of Life Report, 2013), http://atlas.hertslis.org/IAS/profiles/profile?profileId=973&geoTypeId=16&geoIds=26 Agenda Pack 313 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 20 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Soil
The varied geology of Hertfordshire has generated wide variations in soil types and consequently in agricultural land productivity. Approximately 64% of the land area of Hertfordshire is used for agriculture, 7% is wooded, and urban built up areas and transport cover the remaining 29%32.
The county is primarily comprised of Grade 3 agricultural soil although the northern and eastern parts of North Hertfordshire and East Hertfordshire are comprised almost solely of Grade 2 soil. A central strip down the county is primarily classified as urban land or otherwise non-agricultural whilst the southernmost tip is almost entirely urban or non-agricultural.33
Flooding can cause soil erosion, or cause soil pollution, which can affect soil quality and structure, and damage crops. Soils can act as a ‘sponge’ absorbing flood waters and in so doing preventing flooding elsewhere. Flooding in areas of contaminated land could affect water quality. Increased hard-standing, including the paving over of gardens to enable off-road car parking, could increase run-off and localised flood risk.
Cultural heritage
Hertfordshire has a rich cultural heritage. According to English Heritage’s Heritage Counts 2013/14 Datasets Hertfordshire County contains 197 Conservation Areas, 8,059 Listed Buildings, 45 Registered Parks and Gardens, 176 Scheduled Monuments.
Nearly half of the Conservation Areas and listed buildings are in North and East Hertfordshire local authorities34. Historic market towns include Ware, St. Albans, Sawbridgeworth and Bishop’s Stortford35.
Historic buildings and landscapes make a significant contribution to the special character of Hertfordshire and contribute to a rich and varied cultural heritage, which benefits residents and visitors alike36.
Cultural heritage assets such as listed buildings can be damaged through flooding; therefore the LFRMS will provide protection through the measures designed to reduce flood risk. Any measures in the LFRMS that involve construction could potentially affect the setting of such assets.
Landscape and geodiversity
The Chilterns AONB lies within the county and is a nationally important landscape. The county comprises of several Landscape Character Regions, including The North Hertfordshire (chalk) ridge, The East Hertfordshire Plateau, the Central River Valleys and South Hertfordshire Plateau. Within these are a variety of landscape types, some of which are relatively rare.
The geology of Hertfordshire ranges from the clay of the London Basin to extensive chalklands, which forms the Chiltern Hills in the north west. Glacial clays and gravels overlie much of the north east of Hertfordshire, and river gravels occupy the Vale of St. Albans and many of the river valleys37. A map of the Rural Urban Classification is mapped and available from Hertfordshire’s Local Information System38. Hertfordshire includes nine geological conservation review sites including karst landscapes, sites associated with the Quaternary of the Thames and East Anglia, and Water End, for its fluvial geomorphology.
32 LUC (2012) Hertfordshire Waste Development Framework Waste Core Strategy & Development Management Policies DPD Adopted version 2012, Final Sustainability Appraisal Report 33 http://www.hertsdirect.org/docs/pdf/f/lfrmsseareport.pdf 34 English Heritage (2014), Local Authority Profile: Historic Environment 2013/14, 35 Hertfordshire County Council (2007) Hertfordshire Minerals Local Plan Review 2002-2016 (Adopted March 2007) http://www.hertsdirect.org/infobase/docs/pdfstore/mlpradoptionmarch2007.pdf 36 Hertfordshire County Council (2014) Hertfordshire Minerals & Waste Development Framework Authority’s Monitoring Report 37 LUC (2012) Hertfordshire Waste Development Framework Waste Core Strategy & Development Management Policies DPD Adopted version 2012, Final Sustainability Appraisal Report 38 Hertfordshire County Council (2014) Hertfordshire Local Information System: Rural Urban Classification in Hertfordshire 2011, http://www.hertslis.org/content/lisdocs/pdfs/env/ruc2011mapherts.pdf Agenda Pack 314 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 21 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report There are river valleys, chalk grasslands, farmlands, ancient woodlands, designed landscapes and parklands, in addition to an extensive twentieth century urban green infrastructure heritage. River valleys form a natural spine for green infrastructure and Hertfordshire. A number of the river valleys are chalk streams, which are nationally important and are Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitats. The rivers often encompass extensive areas of rich floodplain habitat throughout the rural areas across the county.
The county includes a network of strategic assets such as Ashridge Estate, the Whippendell and Broxbourne Woods Complexes. In Welwyn Hatfield, East Hertfordshire and Hertsmere there are extensive networks of parklands and ancient woodlands which contribute to the substantial existing green infrastructure resource.
Measures proposed in the LFRMS could affect the local landscape if they involve construction, changes in land use or changing water levels.
Material assets There is no definition within the SEA Directive with regards to what is covered by ‘material assets’. In the context of this SEA of the LFRMS this topic has been taken to include tangible assets which may be affected by flooding including the built environment, waste management facilities, minerals extraction sites and transport infrastructure.
Waste
In 2010/2011, 47% of the county’s Local Authority Collected waste was recycled and composted. The majority of the residual Local Authority Collected waste is currently exported to surrounding waste authorities (including Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire and North London) for disposal to either landfill or energy from waste facilities (thermal treatment), leaving a smaller amount to be disposed of in the county at Westmill Landfill Site, near Ware. A number of new facilities will be needed to ensure a more sustainable approach to waste management. While landfill and landraise are the least preferred options, there will still need to be some provision to deal with residual waste in this way during the plan period.39
Transport
The transport network has a north-south focus serving London, the Midlands and the North including the A1 (M) and M1 motorways, and the East Coast, Midland and West Coast Main Line railway routes. With the exception of the heavily congested M25 and A414 in the south of the county, east-west routes are limited. There is a particular problem for east-west rail passenger journeys, which often require taking the train via central London.
Settlements within the county are no more than five miles apart and consist of small and medium sized towns creating complicated movements to access facilities and services40.
For 2013, the trend of decreasing traffic levels has been reversed with an increase of 1.6% for vehicle kilometres travelled. The increase in vehicle kilometres travelled was across all road classifications apart from Principal A Roads, where there was a slight decrease.
Compared to the national average, motorways in Hertfordshire take two times the traffic levels and A roads take 70% more. HGV activity has increased with lorries now travelling three times the national average of kilometres on Hertfordshire’s roads.
Between 2011 and 2013 the overall modal split of travel into all 23 urban centres surveyed showed that the car is the most dominant mode (79%) followed by bus (13%), see Figure 4.2. It should be noted that the surveys cover the main traffic routes into the towns and therefore the bicycle and walk mode share is likely to be an underestimate. The figures highlight that there has been an overall increase in bus use of around 2%, along with a decrease of car use of around 2.5%. This continues the trend seen last year.
This highlights the importance of the road network to the county.
39Hertfordshire Waste Development Framework Waste Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document 2011 – 2026 (2012) 40 http://www.hertsdirect.org/services/transtreets/ltplive/strategy/hertfordshire Agenda Pack 315 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 22 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Figure 4.2: The overall modal split of travel into all 23 urban centres surveyed in the latest set of surveys between 2011 and 201341
Minerals
The main mineral resources in Hertfordshire are sand and gravel with smaller deposits of chalk and brick clay. The following information that is presented is taken from the Local Aggregate Assessment42, unless otherwise referenced.
Sand and gravel deposits are found in most parts of the county although they are concentrated in an area south of a line between Bishop’s Stortford in the east and Hemel Hempstead in the west (often referred to as the sand and gravel belt). This area covers the whole of Three Rivers, Watford, Hertsmere, Welwyn Hatfield and Broxbourne local authorities. Large parts of St. Albans City and District and East Hertfordshire are covered, together with a small part of Dacorum.
Currently sand and gravel extraction takes place at four quarries in Hertfordshire;
Panshanger Quarry, Hertford; Tyttenhanger Quarry, Colney Heath; Westmill Quarry, Ware; Hatfield Quarry with the linked Symondshyde extraction site. The main clay resource in Hertfordshire is brick clay, which is concentrated in the north west of the county. The scale of working for brick clay is relatively small with only one site in Bovingdon excavating brick clay for the production of specialist bricks43.
Chalk is extracted in Hertfordshire for use as an agricultural lime on farms to improve soil quality and is therefore classed as an industrial mineral rather than an aggregate used in construction. There are three permitted chalk extraction sites in Hertfordshire at Codicote Quarry; Bedwell Park Quarry and Anstey Chalk Quarry.
41 Hertfordshire County Council (2014) Transport (Quality of Life Report 2014), http://atlas.hertslis.org/IAS/profiles/profile?profileId=840&geoTypeId= 42 Hertfordshire County Council (2014) Local Aggregate Assessment (November 2014), http://www.hertsdirect.org/docs/pdf/h/hertslaa2014.pdf 43 Hertfordshire County Council (2014) Topic paper for the review of the Hertfordshire County Council Minerals Local Plan: Clay Agenda Pack 316 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 23 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Built environment
Hertfordshire has a distinctive mix of small to medium sized urban settlements juxtaposed with many smaller villages. All of Hertfordshire’s towns and villages are of archaeological significance. Many of them date from the medieval period although the ‘new’ towns of the twentieth century should equally be considered as important cultural assets. The largest towns are Watford, Hemel Hempstead, Stevenage and St. Albans. Overall, there is no single dominant urban centre, but a dense network of towns.
The LFRMS will help to inform the protection and management of important resources and infrastructure of Hertfordshire from flood risk, which are important for the economy and local population.
Key Environmental Issues and Likely Evolution without the Strategy
Analysis of the baseline information has enabled a number of key sustainability issues facing Hertfordshire to be identified. Identification of the key sustainability issues, and consideration of how these issues might develop over time if the LFRMS is not prepared, help to meet the requirements of Annex 1 of the SEA Directive to provide information on: (b) The relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the plan; and (d) Any existing environmental problems which are relevant to the plan.
A list of key environmental issues has been developed drawing on baseline information (see Table 4.1), and the data in the second column has been summarised from data presented in section 3. The aim of this exercise is to draw out those issues that are particularly significant and relevant to the preparation of the LFRMS in Hertfordshire.
It is also a requirement of the SEA Directive that consideration is given to the likely evolution of the environment in the plan area (in this case Hertfordshire County) if the LFRMS were not implemented. This does not mean however, that there would be a policy vacuum with respect to flood risk management, as the policies within the National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy would still apply. However, in many cases, having a more detailed local strategy document is likely to have a benefit for environmental issues, as it allows local response to issues. This analysis of likely evolution without the LFRMS is also presented in Table 4.1, in relation to each of the key environmental issues.
Table 4.1: Key environmental issues for Hertfordshire and implications for the LFRMS
No. Key Environmental Issues Implications for the LFRMS Preventing further declines in Unmanaged flood risk could result in loss and condition status of Hertfordshire’s further fragmentation of key habitats within biodiversity Hertfordshire. Positive planning to maintain habitat networks and protect key wildlife sites, Latest figures on the condition of SSSIs alongside actions to improve water quality will suggests 46.0%, are described as being in support improvement to biodiversity “unfavourable but recovering condition”. In 2011/12, positive conservation 1 management was being implemented in 23.5% of Local Wildlife Sites. Between 2005 and 2013 of the 35 butterfly species measured, 14 have decreased in numbers and 21 have increased in numbers or remained static. Based on distribution, 18 have increased their range and 8 have decreased, with the others unchanged.
Agenda Pack 317 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 24 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report No. Key Environmental Issues Implications for the LFRMS As for aquatic ecology, in 2013, the majority of the water bodies (41.5%) were classified as having poor ecological status including the River Quin and the Lee from Luton Hoo Lakes to Hertford. 4.9% of Hertfordshire’s water bodies were classified as bad; these include the Stort Navigation through Bishop’s Stortford. This will be having a negative impact upon species and plants within and surrounding these habitats. Poor health in some areas The environment can have an important role in determining individuals’ and communities’ Life expectancy in Hertfordshire is physical and mental health. improving, but varies between men and women and between smaller areas Flood events and flood risk have an adverse according to levels of multiple effect on health and quality of life, therefore deprivations. without the LFRMS, there could be additional impacts on deprivation and poor health. 2 In 2012, North Hertfordshire and Hertsmere had significantly higher rates of hospital admissions due to self-harm than the Hertfordshire average. Although East Hertfordshire and St Albans have the lowest levels of hospital, admissions both local authorities have still seen a gradual rise over these three years. Deficiencies in access to outdoor Lack of management of flood risk and flood green space and Hertfordshire’s events may result in loss or damage to extensive network of Public Rights of outdoor green space or public rights of way. Way (PRoW) Without the LFRMS there will be less of a strategic overview to help plan and manage According to Hertfordshire Strategic Green provision and access to rights of way within Infrastructure Plan 2011, there are the context of flood management. deficiencies in Access to Natural Greenspace (ANG) in East Hertfordshire, 3 North Hertfordshire, Hertsmere, Welwyn Hatfield, Watford and Stevenage. Stevenage and North Hertfordshire perform below the average at both county and sub-regional levels. The county has an extensive PRoW network, with over 5,200 paths totalling more than 3,000 km. Water Quality Flood events and lack of water management can impact on water quality which is already The water quality within the county is not vulnerable, therefore in the absence of the yet meeting ‘good’ ecological status in LFRMS water quality issues are unlikely to 4 regards to the EU Water Framework improve Positive management of flood risk Directive. Only 9.8% of water bodies can contribute to improvements in water within the county have good ecological quality. status. Climate change: warmer, drier Flood risk is an increasing threat under summers and wetter winters and risk projected climate trends, and the magnitude of damage from increased flood and extent of impacts from flood risk is likely events, in particular due to extreme to increase, which requires positive 5 weather events. management Annual mean temperatures from Hertfordshire and Central England Temperature (CET) records show a long
Agenda Pack 318 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 25 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report No. Key Environmental Issues Implications for the LFRMS term warming trend. Hertfordshire experiences lower than average precipitation and it is likely that climate change will reduce summer precipitation and increase winter precipitation. In the shorter term, the main impacts from climate change are likely to result from an increase in extreme weather events. The main sources of flood risk include surface water, groundwater, rivers and other watercourses. 12,896 dwellings fall in Flood Zones 2 and 3. Significant levels of fluvial flood risk are seen in the south and south eastern parts of the county. Potential for damage to the historic Despite the high level of protection afforded to environment nationally designated cultural heritage sites within the NPPF, unmanaged flooding could In Hertfordshire, there are including 197 6 result in adverse effects on Hertfordshire’s Conservation Areas, 8,059 Listed cultural heritage (including architecture and Buildings, 45 Registered Parks and archaeology). Gardens, 176 Scheduled Monuments. Changes in landscape character Flood management measures can have both positive and negative effects on local Hertfordshire has a rich variety of landscape character, however unmanaged landscapes, both urban and rural, as well flood events can also impact on landscape as an AONB providing a high quality character. environment for those who live and work 7 in the county. There is the potential for flood risk management to contribute to changes in landscape character in the county and the strategy should endeavour to ensure landscape enhancement as much as possible. Traffic Growth Traffic growth reflects the reliance on the road network and the need to protect this If the county continues to attract more infrastructure from flood risk. people through inward migration, traffic 8 growth will continue to affect the transport network and may exceed planned capacity in some places. Increased traffic could have a detrimental effect on quality of life within the county. Development pressure The land resource needs to be protected for flood management and mitigation, and to Hertfordshire’s proximity to London means ensure the avoidance of development in flood that there is pressure for development of risk areas. New development should be housing. Local authorities are responsible designed to mitigate flood risk and 9 for determining housing numbers and opportunities should be taken to incorporate distribution; however with over 50% of surface water management measures. the county being designated Green Belt it is likely that there will be more limited land for all types of development.
Agenda Pack 319 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 26 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report 5 SEA Framework and Approach to the SEA
This section helps to address the SEA Directive requirements in Annex 1: (e) The environmental protection objectives, established at international, Community or Member State level, which are relevant to the plan or programme and the way those objectives and any environmental considerations have been taken into account during its preparation.
The development of an assessment framework provides a recognised way in which the likely sustainability effects of a plan can be predicted, described, analysed and compared in a consistent way. The SEA objectives provide the basis for testing options and policy formulation of relevant aspects of the LFRMS.
SEA Framework and Approach to the SEA
Table 5.1 SEA Framework for Hertfordshire’s LFRMS
SEA Objectives SEA Topics
1) To minimise the current and future risk of Material assets flooding to residential properties and community and economic assets and critical infrastructure
2) To maintain water resources and water quality Water
3) To protect the quality of soils Soil
4) To protect human health and wellbeing Population, human health.
5) To protect biodiversity, fauna and flora and Biodiversity, fauna and flora. geodiversity
6) To protect landscape character and green Landscape infrastructure
7) To protect the quality and character of the Cultural heritage including built environment, historic landscapes and architectural and archaeological designated and undesignated cultural heritage heritage. assets
8) To support adaption to the projected impacts Climatic factors of climate change
The SEA topic of ‘air’ has been scoped out, reflecting the lack of anticipated impacts on air quality arising from the LFRMS, in line with the approach in the National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy.
Approach to the later stages of the SEA
The later stages of the SEA will involve assessing the likely effects of the measures included in the LFRMS on each of the SEA objectives (and therefore the SEA topics) using a matrix for each key Agenda Pack 320 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 27 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report objective or action from the LFRMS. Each measure will be assessed individually with consideration being given to the likely significant positive and negative effects, including cumulative, synergistic, short and long-term effects. A colour-coded score will be given in relation to each objective, in line with the key shown in Figure 5.1 below.
Figure 5.1: Key to symbols and colour coding to be used in the SEA of the LFRMS
The policy is likely to have a significant positive impact on the SEA ++ objective(s). + The policy is likely to have a minor positive impact on the SEA objective(s). The policy is likely to have a negligible or no impact on the SEA 0 objective(s). The policy is likely to have a mixture of positive and negative impacts on +/- the SEA objective(s). The policy is likely to have a minor negative impact on the SEA objective(s). The policy is likely to have a significant negative impact on the SEA objective(s). ? It is uncertain what effect the policy will have on the SEA objective(s).
Assessment of Alternatives
It is anticipated that alternatives will emerge during the preparation of the review of the LFRMS. These may include alternative approaches to the prioritisation of investment in flood risk management projects and the planning for responses to the future impacts of climate change. As drafting of the LFRMS is progressed, emerging alternatives will be identified and included in the SEA.
Draft Environmental Report
Undertaking the SEA of the LFRMS with the framework outlined in this Chapter will inform and lead to the preparation of the full draft Environmental Report (drawing on and including relevant elements from this Scoping Report), which will address all of the requirements of the SEA Directive and Regulations (as set out in Table A1.1).
The draft Environmental Report would include:
An outline of the contents of the LFRMS and its relationship with other relevant plans, policies and programmes.
The environmental, social and economic characteristics of Hertfordshire, including any problems and issues identified and their likely evolution without the plan.
Key environmental, social and economic policy objectives set at the international, national and local level, of relevance to the LFRMS.
The SEA Framework and the assumptions used to make judgements about the effects of the LFRMS options.
Any difficulties encountered during the appraisal process, including lack of information and data.
How consultation comments have been taken into account, including those obtained on the SEA Scoping Report.
The reasonable alternatives considered, and their environmental impacts, and an outline of the county council’s reasons for selecting and rejecting particular options to include in the draft LFRMS.
Agenda Pack 321 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 28 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report The appraisal findings for the key elements of the LFRMS including any significant effects identified for each of the objectives in the SEA framework, taking into account mitigation (which may take the form of policy safeguards elsewhere in the strategy, in national policy or other regulatory mechanisms).
Proposed monitoring framework for significant effects identified (including uncertain effects where these could become significant).
A Non-Technical Summary (NTS) which summarises all of the above (as required in the SEA Regulations).
Agenda Pack 322 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 29 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report 6 Next Steps
This section sets out the future milestones in the development of the LFRMS. Table 6.1 details the programme for development and assessment of the LFRMS and its SEA, and the anticipated dates for completion.
Table 6.1 Outline timescale Programme LFRMS Stage SEA Stage Autumn 2015- Drafting strategy Preparing SEA Scoping Report (Stage A) Spring 2016 Spring 2016 Drafting strategy (developing Scoping report consultation period (Stage and refining options). A) Responses received from Consultation Authorities Update SEA scoping report post consultation (Stage A) Summer 2016 Draft LFRMS published for Assessing alternatives and preferred consultation options (Stage B) Spring 2017 Updated LFRMS published for Drafting Environmental Report (Stage C) consultation Draft Environmental Report published for consultation (Stage D) Autumn 2017 Adoption of final LFRMS SEA post-adoption statement (Stage E)
Consultation
To meet the requirements of the SEA Regulations, the views of the three statutory consultees (Natural England, Historic England and the Environment Agency) will be sought in relation to the scope and level of detail to be included in the SEA. This requirement is being met by publishing this SEA Scoping Report for consultation with the three statutory bodies for a minimum of a five week period. LUC April 2016
Agenda Pack 323 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 30 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Appendix 1 Review of Plans, Policies and Programmes of relevance to the SEA of the LFRMS
Agenda Pack 324 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 31 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Table A1.1 Review of plans and programmes relevant to the Hertfordshire LFRMS
Plan, project or programme Brief overview and key objectives Implications for the Hertfordshire LFRMS and the SEA (including any potential conflicts)
International
SEA Directive 2001 Provides for a high level of protection of the environment and SEA undertaken for the contributes to the integration of environmental considerations into Hertfordshire LFRMS must Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes with a view be in conformity with the of certain plans and programmes on the environment to promoting sustainable development. SEA Directive.
The Floods Directive (2007) Directive 2007/60/EC Requires EU member states to assess if all watercourses and Directly relevant to the coastlines are at risk from flooding, to map the flood extent and LFRMS as it provides the assets and humans at risk in these areas and to take adequate and European policy framework co-ordinated measures to reduce this flood risk. for dealing with flood risk, which has been transposed into UK law through the Flood Risk Regulations 2009 (see below).
Groundwater Directive (2006) Directive 2006/118/EC The Groundwater Directive establishes a regime which sets Legislation that can affect underground water quality standards and introduces measures to water quality (including prevent or limit inputs of pollutants into groundwater. In the UK, the groundwater quality) is of Groundwater Directive is implemented through the Environmental relevance to the LFRMS Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2012. because of the links that can exist between flood events and water pollution.
Water Framework Directive (2000) Directive The Water Framework Directive (WFD) provides a framework To meet the requirements of 2000/60/EC committing EU member states to the protection of inland surface the WFD and improve water waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. quality and quantity within rivers, estuaries, coasts and The WFD is built on four main pillars: aquifers, River Basin 1) Co-ordinated action to achieve ‘good status’ for all EU waters, Management Plans have including surface and groundwater, by 2015. been prepared for all river Agenda Pack 325 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 32 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Plan, project or programme Brief overview and key objectives Implications for the Hertfordshire LFRMS and the SEA (including any potential conflicts)
2) Setting up a water-management system based on natural basin districts by the river basin districts, crossing regional and national Environment Agency, in boundaries. consultation with relevant 3) Integrated water management, bringing different water organisations and management issues into one framework. individuals. They present 4) Active involvement of interested parties and consultation of the main issues facing the the public. water environment and the actions required to deal with It covers groundwater and all surface waters including rivers, lakes, them. coastal waters and ‘transitional waters’, such as estuaries that connect fresh and saltwater. It sets a less ambitious objective – ‘good potential’ – for artificial and ‘heavily modified’ bodies of water such as canals and reservoirs, or industrial ports. There is a requirement to co-ordinate the delivery of the WFD and the Floods Directive (see above), and the Environment Agency is responsible for this in England and Wales. The WFD and the Floods Directive both use river basin districts as the unit of management. There are 11 river basin districts that are partly or fully within England and Wales, and Hertfordshire lies partly within both the Thames and Anglian River Basin Districts.
The Birds Directive 2009 The preservation, maintenance, and re-establishment of biotopes and Include sustainability habitats shall include the following measures: objectives/policies for the Directive 2009/147/EC is a codified version of Directive protection of fauna 79/409/EEC as amended Creation of protected areas. (including birds) Upkeep and management in accordance with the ecological needs of habitats inside and outside the protected zones. Re-establishment of destroyed biotopes. Creation of biotopes.
The Habitats Directive 1992 Promote the maintenance of biodiversity taking account of economic, Include sustainability social, cultural and regional requirements. Conservation of natural objectives/policies relating Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and maintain landscape features of importance to wildlife to biodiversity, including habitats and of wild fauna and flora Agenda Pack 326 of 353 European sites - avoid flood SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 33 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Plan, project or programme Brief overview and key objectives Implications for the Hertfordshire LFRMS and the SEA (including any potential conflicts)
and fauna. management structures or activities causing the deterioration of natural habitats, or the habitats of protected species, within European sites
European Landscape Convention (Florence, 2002) The convention promotes landscape protection, management and Take account of the planning. Convention
European Convention on the Protection of the Protection of the archaeological heritage, including any physical Take account of the Archaeological Heritage (Valletta, 1992) evidence of the human past that can be investigated archaeologically Convention. both on land and underwater. Revision of the 1985 Granada Convention Creation of archaeological reserves and conservation of excavated sites.
Aarhus Convention (1998) Established a number of rights of the public with regard to the Take account of the environment. Local authorities should provide for: Convention The right of everyone to receive environmental information The right to participate from an early stage in environmental decision making The right to challenge in a court of law public decisions that have been made without respecting the two rights above or environmental law in general.
National
Natural Environment White Paper - The Natural This document outlines the Government’s vision for the natural As biodiversity, flora and Choice: Securing the Value of Nature (2012) Defra environment over the next 50 years, and sets out practical actions to fauna are included within the deliver that ambition. It also takes forward recommendations SEA topics, the SEA of the contained in ‘Making Space for Nature’, an independent review of LFRMS will be required to England’s wildlife sites and ecological network. The White Paper consider the likely effects of identifiesAgenda the essential Pack ‘regulating’327 of 353 services provided by the natural measures proposed in the SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 34 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Plan, project or programme Brief overview and key objectives Implications for the Hertfordshire LFRMS and the SEA (including any potential conflicts)
environment, including flood hazard reduction, and describes how the LFRMS on the natural natural environment can be managed to maximise the delivery of environment. In addition, that service. the White Paper could help to inform the development of appropriate measures to be included in the LFRMS.
Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy This document provides additional guidance on flood risk and This document provides Framework (2012) expands on what is set out in the NPPF, stating that: ‘inappropriate detailed technical guidance development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by in relation to national directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where planning policy on flood risk; development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood therefore is directly relevant risk elsewhere.’ to the LFRMS.
National Planning Policy Framework (2012) The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has replaced the The NPPF has replaced suite of national planning policy statements and planning policy PPS25: Development and guidance notes, bringing them into one slimmed down document. Flood Risk, and now provides the national policy The NPPF is based around the presumption in favour of sustainable framework in relation to development. Sustainable development, for the planning system, is planning in areas of high defined as: flood risk. The presumption Planning for prosperity – using the planning system to build a in favour of sustainable strong, responsive and competitive economy. development and the Planning for people – using the planning system to promote requirement for local strong, vibrant and healthy communities. planning authorities to plan positively to help facilitate Planning for places – using the planning system to protect economic growth could and enhance the natural, built and historic environment. potentially lead to increased The presumption in favour of sustainable development requires a tension between the demand positive planning system to help facilitate economic growth. The for land for development and NPPF requires that significant weight is placed on securing economic the aim to ensure that growth. inappropriate development does not occur in areas of The NPPF contains several key changes from the suite of policy high flood risk. Agenda Pack 328 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 35 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Plan, project or programme Brief overview and key objectives Implications for the Hertfordshire LFRMS and the SEA (including any potential conflicts)
guidance notes and statements that it has replaced: The local development framework has been replaced with the local plan, which will contain both policies and site allocations. The long term protection of employment land or floorspace is discouraged. The sequential test for offices is removed. Permission should be granted for housing where a 5 year supply (plus 20% contingency) is not in place – though this would be still subject to other policies and parts of the NPPF. Local communities will be able to designate local green space. The NPPF introduces neighbourhood planning, neighbourhood development orders and community right to build schemes.
Working with the Grain of Nature: A Biodiversity This strategy sets out a series of actions that will be undertaken by The potential impacts of the Strategy for England (2011) Defra the Government and partners to make biodiversity a fundamental LFRMS and any specific consideration in public policy, including: measures included within it on biodiversity will need to Adopting a whole catchment approach to land use and water management, focusing efforts where environmental risks are be taken into account greatest and actions are most likely to result in significant through the SEA and benefits. possibly through a separate HRA, depending on the Recognising that there is a need in urban areas to make nature of the measures biodiversity a part of the development process. coming forward in the Funding of biodiversity should aim to improve techniques for LFRMS and the proximity of the valuation of biodiversity in the development process and the county to European identify gaps in funding regimes. designated sites (Special Encouraging businesses to be concerned with issues related Areas of Conservation, to biodiversity. Special Protection Areas and Ramsar sites).
National Strategy for Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk The strategy builds on existing approaches to flood and coastal risk The LFRMS should contribute Agenda Pack 329 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 36 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Plan, project or programme Brief overview and key objectives Implications for the Hertfordshire LFRMS and the SEA (including any potential conflicts)
Management (2011) Defra and the Environment management and promotes the use of a wide range of measures to to achieving the objectives Agency manage risk. of the National Strategy. The LFRMS will balance local The strategy encourages more effective risk management by priorities and apply the enabling people, communities, business, infrastructure operators and principles of the strategy to the public sector to work together to: the issues within Ensure a clear understanding of the risks of flooding and Hertfordshire. coastal erosion, nationally and locally, so that investment in risk management can be prioritised more effectively; Set out clear and consistent plans for risk management so that communities and businesses can make informed decisions about the management of the remaining risk; Manage flood and coastal erosion risks in an appropriate way, taking account of the needs of communities and the environment; Ensure that emergency plans and responses to flood incidents are effective and that communities are able to respond effectively to flood forecasts, warnings and advice; Help communities to recover more quickly and effectively after incidents.
Water for Life (2011) Defra This White Paper is the Government’s response to pressures on water The White Paper sets out resources. Key commitments within the Paper include: actions for the water environment that may link Reform of the abstraction regime. with measures included in Improving water quality. the LFRMS, such as Consideration of national infrastructure projects. supporting catchment pilots throughout the country Taking a strategic approach to wastewater and drainage. alongside the Environment Ensuring an affordable water supply. Agency. Using water wisely. Producing a new strategic policy paper to help deliver the Agenda Pack 330 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 37 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Plan, project or programme Brief overview and key objectives Implications for the Hertfordshire LFRMS and the SEA (including any potential conflicts) White Paper’s priorities.
Guidance for risk management authorities on Section 27 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 requires The guidance applies to Lead sustainable development in relation to their flood and Lead Local Flood Authorities to aim to make a contribution towards Local Flood Authorities. It coastal erosion risk management functions (2011) the achievement of sustainable development when exercising their provides background context Defra flood and coastal erosion risk management functions. It also requires about the application of the Secretary of State to issue guidance on how those authorities are sustainable development to discharge this duty and explain the meaning of sustainable principles when discharging development in this context which this document does. their duties to manage flood risk (as Hertfordshire County Council is doing through the production of the LFRMS).
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 The Regulations require HRA (2010) consolidate all the various amendments made to the Conservation to be carried out in relation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 in respect of England and to certain plans, which may Wales. The 1994 Regulations transposed Council Directive include Hertfordshire LFRMS 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna depending on the measures and flora (EC Habitats Directive) into national law. to be included within it and the presence of European sites in or within close proximity of the County.
Underground, Under Threat: The state of groundwater Describes the importance of groundwater quality and the current Flooding can affect in England and Wales (2010) Environment Agency state of groundwater in England and Wales. Two main threats to groundwater quality; groundwater resources are identified: demand (making sure therefore the management groundwater levels do not fluctuate too much), and pollution of flood risk can be seen as (groundwater is vulnerable to contamination and difficult to clean if beneficial in terms of contamination occurs). achieving higher groundwater quality. An example of the importance of managing demand is given in London, where groundwater levels had fallen to 90 metres below the surface by the 1960s. Since then the rate of abstraction has declined and groundwater levels have recovered, and threatened to flood some parts of the underground infrastructure. Increased abstraction Agenda Pack 331 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 38 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Plan, project or programme Brief overview and key objectives Implications for the Hertfordshire LFRMS and the SEA (including any potential conflicts)
will keep the water table below foundations and tunnels.
Flood and Water Management Act (2010) Addresses water management, including the management of flood The Act provides the risk. Requires that a Lead Local Flood Authority must develop, legislative requirement for maintain, apply and monitor a strategy for local flood risk the production of LFRMSs by management in its area (the LFRMS). all Lead Local Flood Authorities, including The strategy must specify: Hertfordshire County (a) the risk management authorities in the authority’s area, Council. (b) the flood and coastal erosion risk management functions that may be exercised by those authorities in relation to the area,
(c) the objectives for managing local flood risk (including any objectives included in the authority’s flood risk management plan prepared in accordance with the Flood Risk Regulations 2009), (d) the measures proposed to achieve those objectives,
(e) how and when the measures are expected to be implemented,
(f) the costs and benefits of those measures, and how they are to be paid for, (g) the assessment of local flood risk for the purpose of the strategy, (h) how and when the strategy is to be reviewed, and (i) how the strategy contributes to the achievement of wider environmental objectives.
Safeguarding our Soils, A Strategy for England (2009) Sets out the Government’s strategy for improving soil quality in Flooding can have Defra England and safeguard the ability of soils to provide essential implications for soil quality, services. for example by causing soil erosion, and soil pollution. Agenda Pack 332 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 39 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Plan, project or programme Brief overview and key objectives Implications for the Hertfordshire LFRMS and the SEA (including any potential conflicts)
Water for People and the Environment; Water Sets out the approach to water resources management throughout Flood risk management Resources Strategy for England and Wales (2009) England and Wales to 2050 and beyond to ensure that there will be measures are closely linked Environment Agency enough water for people and the environment. to wider water resources management issues.
The Flood Risk Regulations (2009) These Regulations implement the EU Floods Directive. They require The Flood Risk regulations the Environment Agency to assess, map and manage flood risk from are directly relevant to the main rivers, the sea and reservoirs and 'Lead Local Flood Authorities' production of the LFRMS such as Hertfordshire County Council to do the same for all other because it places duties on flood risks. authorities such as Hertfordshire County Council to prepare flood risk assessments, flood risk maps and flood risk management plans that will set the context for and inform the LFRMS.
Adapting to Climate Change in England. A Framework Sets out what the Government has already done and what it will be The LFRMS will contribute to for Action (2008) Defra doing to help the country adapt to anticipated climate changes. The the local level actions framework encourages action to be taken at the appropriate level, intended to help areas such and states that many of the actions that need to be taken early but as Hertfordshire adapt to have a long-term impact are delivered at the local and regional climate change by levels. addressing local flood risk management.
Future Water, The Government’s Water Strategy for Future Water sets out how the Government wants the water sector to Flood risk management is England (2008) Defra look by 2030, and some of the steps that will need to be taken to get one of the themes addressed there. Themes addressed include water supply, water demand, water by the Strategy, and the quality, surface drainage, flooding and climate change. The vision for LFRMS will contribute to the 2030 in relation to flooding is: delivery of the 2030 vision by implementing flood risk Flood and coastal erosion risk management which contributes to sustainable development, combining the delivery of social management within Agendaand environmental Pack 333 benefits of 353 with the protection of economic SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 40 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Plan, project or programme Brief overview and key objectives Implications for the Hertfordshire LFRMS and the SEA (including any potential conflicts)
assets. Hertfordshire. An understanding of the future risks of river and coastal flooding fully embedded into the spatial planning system, including planning for new settlements and other new developments. Consistent and holistic management of urban flood risk, with strategic planning, partnerships of responsible bodies and clear understanding of various flood risk responsibilities. Public understanding of the risks we face and the actions we can take to help manage flood and coastal erosion risk. Community resilience to flooding from improved development planning, emergency planning and response, and resilience of homes, buildings, services and utilities.
Climate Change UK Programme: Tomorrow’s Climate The Climate Change Programme sets out the Government’s Government action to Today’s Challenge (2006) Defra commitments at both the international and national levels to meet mitigate the causes of the challenge of climate change. It also sets out the approach to climate change will impact strengthening the role that individuals can play. on the level of future flood risk that is likely to affect all It proposes revised guidance on implementing flood and coastal areas, including erosion risk management measures, to ensure that adaptability to Hertfordshire, and which the climate change becomes an integral part of all flood and coastal LFRMS is required to erosion management decisions. address.
Contaminated Land (England) Regulations (2006) Sets out provisions relating to the identification and remediation of Flooding in areas of contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act contaminated land can affect 1990. water quality.
Securing the Future: Delivering the Sustainable Establishes a broad set of actions and priorities to support the Much of the content is Development Strategy (2005) Defra achievement of Sustainable Development. aspirational rather than comprising specific sets of Establishes five statements of principle: proposals; however the Developing within environmental limits LFRMS will play a role in Agenda Pack 334 of 353 contributing to sustainable SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 41 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Plan, project or programme Brief overview and key objectives Implications for the Hertfordshire LFRMS and the SEA (including any potential conflicts)
Promoting a strong healthy and just society development within Achieve sustainable economic growth Hertfordshire so should take account of the broader Promote good governance principles of sustainable Use sound science responsibly development. Identifies four priorities for emerging policy: Sustainable consumption and production Climate change Natural resources and protection Sustainable communities
The Water Act (2014) The 2014 Act is intended to reform the water industry to make it As abstraction and more innovative to customers and to increase the resilience of water impounding of water has a supplies to natural hazards such as droughts and floods. The Act direct influence on water includes additional measures to restore the sustainable abstraction of levels, it is closely linked to water and improve the way water resource management and drought the issue of flood risk planning are managed. It also encourages the use of Sustainable management. Drainage Systems (SuDS).
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) (2002) Describes sustainable drainage techniques for reducing the impact of Sustainable Drainage Environment Agency surface water discharge. Techniques described in the document are: Systems (SuDS) as identified in the policy can Source control and prevention techniques: have a positive effect on Green roofs flooding in urban areas such Permeable Pavements as the towns within Hertfordshire. The use of Rainwater Harvesting SuDS is likely to be Infiltration Trenches addressed through the measures in Hertfordshire’s Infiltration Basins LFRMS. Permeable Conveyance Systems: Agenda Pack 335 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 42 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Plan, project or programme Brief overview and key objectives Implications for the Hertfordshire LFRMS and the SEA (including any potential conflicts) Filter (or French) Drains Swales Passive Treatment Systems: Filter Strips Detention Basins Retention Ponds Wetlands
Directing the Flow: Priorities for Future Water Policy Sets out the priorities for government policy on water in England over Flood risk management (2002) Defra the longer term. Its scope is primarily our use of freshwater and the measures are closely linked inland water environment but it also covers estuaries and many to wider water resources aspects of our coastal water. management issues.
The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future This statement was published to conclude a long running review of As cultural heritage is one of (2001) Department for Culture, Media and Sport policy in the area of England’s historic environment. Looks at a the SEA topics, the SEA of range of policy instruments that can be used to achieve wider the LFRMS will be required objectives for conserving and enhancing the historic environment, to consider the likely effects including funding, legislation, policy guidance, delivery mechanisms, of measures proposed in the reprioritisation and partnership working. LFRMS on the historic environment.
The National Adaptation Programme – Making the The report sets out visions for the following sectors: The LFRMS should seek to Country Resilient to a Changing Climate (Defra, 2013) promote the implementation Built Environment – “buildings and places and the people who live and work in them are resilient to a changing climate and of adaptation measures to extreme weather and organisations in the built environment make the area more resilient sector have an increased capacity to address the risks and to a changing climate. take the opportunities from climate change”. Infrastructure – “an infrastructure network that is resilient to today’s natural hazards and prepared for the future changing climate”. Healthy and resilient communities – “a health service, a Agenda Pack 336 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 43 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Plan, project or programme Brief overview and key objectives Implications for the Hertfordshire LFRMS and the SEA (including any potential conflicts) public health and social care system which are resilient and adapted to a changing climate. Communities and individuals, including the most vulnerable, are better prepared to cope with severe weather events and other impacts of climate change. Emergency services and local resilience capability take account of and are resilient to, a changing climate”. Agriculture and Forestry – “profitable and productive agriculture and forestry sectors that take the opportunities from climate change, are resilient to its threats and contribute to the resilience of the natural environment by helping maintain ecosystem services and protect and enhance biodiversity”. Natural Environment – “the natural environment, with diverse and healthy ecosystems, is resilient to climate change, able to accommodate change and valued for the adaptation services it provides”. Business – “UK businesses are resilient to extreme weather and prepared for future risks and opportunities from climate change”. Local Government – “Local government plays a central role in leading and supporting local places to become more resilient to a range of future risk and to be prepared for the opportunities from a changing climate”.
Water for People and the Environment: Water The Strategy vision for water resource “is for there to be enough The LFRMS should help to Resources Strategy for England and Wales water for people and the environment, meeting legitimate needs”. Its protect existing water (Environment Agency, 2009) aims include: resources and the local water environment from the To manage water resource and protect the water environment from climate change. detrimental risks of flooding. Restore, protect, improve and value species and habitats that depend on water. To contribute to sustainable development through good water management. Agenda Pack 337 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 44 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Plan, project or programme Brief overview and key objectives Implications for the Hertfordshire LFRMS and the SEA (including any potential conflicts) People to understand how water and the water environment contribute to their quality of life.
DEFRA (2011) Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for The strategy aims to guide conservation efforts in England up to The LFRMS should promote England’s wildlife and ecosystem services 2020, and move from a net biodiversity loss to gain. The strategy approaches to flood and includes 22 priorities which include actions for the following sectors: erosion management which conserve the natural Agriculture; environment and improve Forestry; biodiversity Planning and Development; Water Management; Marine Management; Fisheries; Air Pollution; and Invasive Non-Native Species.
Sub-National
Thames River Basin District Management Plan (2015) The majority of Hertfordshire lies in the north eastern area of the The River Basin District Management Plan provides Thames river basin. The recently updated River Basin District important evidence and Management Plan provides a framework for protecting and enhancing context for the production of the benefits provided by the water environment. Significant water the LFRMS and the management issues for the river basin district are identified as: associated SEA. physical modification of water bodies; pollution from waste water; pollution from towns, cities and transport; changes to the natural flow and level of water; negative effects of invasive, non-native species; and pollution from rural areas. Agenda Pack 338 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 45 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Plan, project or programme Brief overview and key objectives Implications for the Hertfordshire LFRMS and the SEA (including any potential conflicts)
At present, only 7.8% per cent of surface water bodies are classified as good or better ecological status while 99% of surface water bodies are classified as good chemical status. 53% of groundwater bodies are at good quantitative status and 61% are at good chemical status.
Anglian River Basin District Management Plan (2015) The northern fringes of Hertfordshire lie in the Anglian Catchment. The River Basin District Management Plan provides The recently updated River Basin District Management Plan provides important evidence and a framework for protecting and enhancing the benefits provided by context for the production of the water environment. Significant water management issues for the the LFRMS and the river basin district are identified as: associated SEA. physical modification of water bodies; pollution from waste water; pollution from towns, cities and transport; changes to the natural flow and level of water; negative effects of invasive, non-native species; and pollution from rural areas. At present, only 10.7% per cent of surface water bodies are classified as good or better ecological status while 99% of surface water bodies are classified as good chemical status. 48% of groundwater bodies are at good quantitative status and 51% are at good chemical status.
Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan The CFMP considers all types of inland flooding, from rivers, ground The CFMP provides important evidence and Summary Report, Environment Agency, December water, surface water and tidal flooding, but not flooding directly from context for the production of 200944 the sea (coastal flooding), which is covered by Shoreline the LFRMS and the Management Plans (SMPs). The CFMP seeks to understand the scale associated SEA. and extent of flooding and how policies can be set for managing flood risk. Individual policy approaches are set out for each sub- catchment.
44 http://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/documents/ke81-thames-catchment-flood-Agendamanagement Pack-plan-summary 339 of-report.pdf 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 46 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Plan, project or programme Brief overview and key objectives Implications for the Hertfordshire LFRMS and the SEA (including any potential conflicts)
Great Ouse Catchment Flood Management Plan The CFMP considers all types of inland flooding, from rivers, ground The CFMP provides important evidence and Summary Report, Environment Agency, January 2011 water, surface water and tidal flooding, but not flooding directly from context for the production of the sea (coastal flooding), which is covered by Shoreline the LFRMS and the Management Plans (SMPs). The CFMP seeks to understand the scale associated SEA. and extent of flooding and how policies can be set for managing flood risk. Individual policy approaches are set out for each sub- catchment.
National Character Area profiles (2012-2014) Natural England is divided into 159 distinct natural areas through the The relevant NCA profiles may provide useful evidence England National Character Areas (NCAs) system. Each is defined by a unique for the LFRMS and the SEA combination of landscape, biodiversity, geodiversity and cultural and and the LFRMS should seek economic activity. Their boundaries follow natural lines in the to contribute to realising the landscape rather than administrative boundaries, making them a opportunities identified for good decision making framework for the natural environment. the relevant NCAs, as relevant. Within Hertfordshire, there are five NCAs, and the majority of the county lies within the Northern Thames Basin character area. Full profiles of the area describe the key landscape characteristics, and importantly the environmental opportunities of the character area.
County level
Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment for The PFRA gives an overview of local flood risk in Hertfordshire based The PFRA is a key document Hertfordshire (PFRA) June 2011 Hertfordshire on a review of records of flooding and data derived from modelling of of relevance to the LFRMS, County Council potential future flooding. It has been prepared by Hertfordshire setting out important http://www.hertsdirect.org/docs/pdf/f/hccpfra.pdf County Council as part of a submission to meet the requirements of evidence relating to current the Flood Risk Regulations (2009). levels of flood risk in Hertfordshire and how it can be managed.
Hertfordshire Health Profile (2015) Public Health The health of people in Hertfordshire is generally better than the Flood risk can have a England45 England average. Deprivation is lower than average, however about significant impact on health
45 http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=171794 Agenda Pack 340 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 47 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Plan, project or programme Brief overview and key objectives Implications for the Hertfordshire LFRMS and the SEA (including any potential conflicts)
12.9% (28,400) of children live in poverty. Life expectancy for both and wellbeing, and the men and women is higher than the England average. Health Profile provides important evidence and context for the SEA.
Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for The scope of the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy is to consider The LFRMS is a key Hertfordshire (2011)46 flooding from the following sources; surface runoff, groundwater and document of relevance to ordinary watercourses and any interaction these have with main the review of the LFRMS, rivers and the sea. The Strategy assesses and defines what locally setting out important significant flood risk is. Hertfordshire currently has no areas that evidence relating to current meet the national criteria for designation as Flood Risk Areas. The levels of flood risk in Strategy sets out high level objectives and actions which will be Hertfordshire and how it can taken to achieve the objectives. be managed.
Hertfordshire Waste Development Framework Waste The Waste Core Strategy sets out the vision, objectives and spatial Flooding in areas where Core Strategy and Development Management Policies strategy for waste planning in Hertfordshire up to 2026, providing the there is landfill or waste 2011-2026(2012) basis for a longer term spatial strategy that complements the county recovery could affect water council’s Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy to 2026. The quality. The location of Waste Development Management Policies provide guidance on the waste management facilities issues that will be considered when determining planning applications in relation to areas of high for waste management development. The Development Management flood risk, and the Policies also provide guidance to the public and developers regarding incorporation of measures the criteria that are required to manage waste developments. such as SuDS, can affect the extent to which they may contribute to or help mitigate the risk from flooding.
Hertfordshire Sustainable Community Strategy The Sustainable Community Strategy sets out priorities for The LFRMS and the SEA Hertfordshire 2012: A brighter future47 improvement in business, investment, skills and education. It should take into account and recognises the pressures that new housing development and job contribute to the priorities of
46 http://www.hertsdirect.org/docs/pdf/f/lfrmssec1.pdf 47 http://www.hertsdirect.org/docs/pdf/s/scs.pdf Agenda Pack 341 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 48 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Plan, project or programme Brief overview and key objectives Implications for the Hertfordshire LFRMS and the SEA (including any potential conflicts)
creation will have on transport infrastructure, local services and the the Sustainable Community environment. Strategy. Reducing flood risk will be a key part of
developing more sustainable communities, and protecting important resources.
Climate Change Strategic Framework for This report sets out strategic objectives for addressing climate Climate change is of Hertfordshire(2009) change in Hertfordshire, including adaptation to the impacts of particular significance to the climate change and ensuring that Hertfordshire’s water resources are LFRMS as the likely increase managed to limit the negative impacts of climate change. in winter precipitation and more frequent extreme weather events will make flood risk management even more important. The actions set out in this document are likely to link closely with the measures included in the LFRMS.
SuDS Design Guidance for Hertfordshire (March 2015) This guidance is for developers involved in the design and The LFRMS and the SEA development of SuDS in Hertfordshire. It promotes an integrated should take into account and approach to SuDS and landscape design, and establishes a set of contribute to the priorities of local design criteria to help shape the development of SuDS in the Sustainable Community respect of the county’s unique environmental context. Strategy.
Local level
Surface Water Management Plans These have been produced for Watford and St Albans as they include The SWMPs provide a the settlements shown to be at highest risk within Hertfordshire. detailed assessment of flood Further SWMPs will be undertaken in order of the highest number of risk and management within properties at risk. The SWMPs model flood risk and identify flood an area, which will provide relief schemes and flood mitigation measures. locally specific information which can be used to inform Agenda Pack 342 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 49 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report Plan, project or programme Brief overview and key objectives Implications for the Hertfordshire LFRMS and the SEA (including any potential conflicts)
the SEA.
Strategic Flood Risk Assessments SFRAs have been produced at the District level for the authorities The District-level SFRAs will within Hertfordshire, and provide information about the level of flood provide important evidence risk within each district and help to inform the allocation of land for the LFRMS and the SEA. through the relevant local planning documents.
Local Plans Local planning documents produced at the District level set out the The District-level Local Plans future direction of development in each of Hertfordshire’s districts, are an important part of the and in some cases allocate specific locations for new housing and planning policy framework in employment development. the county, within which the LFRMS will be implemented.
Agenda Pack 343 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 50 April 2016 SEA Scoping Report
Agenda Pack 344 of 353 SEA of Hertfordshire’s LFRMS 51 April 2016
HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Agenda Item No.
ENVIRONMENT PLANNING AND TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL 9 THURSDAY, 30 JUNE 2016 AT 10.00 AM
GROWTH DEAL ROUND 3 – UPDATE ON PROPOSED BIDS
Report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment
Author: Jon Tiley – Business Manager Spatial Planning and Economy (Tel: 01992 556292)
Executive Member: Derrick Ashley (Environment, Planning & Transport)
Local Member/s: County wide
1. Purpose of report
1.1 This report summarises the bids currently being prepared for Growth Deal Round Three, highlighting those transport related bids that the County Council are engaged in. The bids will be formally considered by the Local Transport Body in early July and the Panel is therefore asked for any comments in relation to the bids to inform the Executive Member who represents the County Council at the Local Transport Body meeting.
2. Summary
2.1 The Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) has been invited to bid for funding through a third Growth Deal process (GF3). This is for projects that will be delivered in financial years 2019/20 and 2020/21. Amongst the bids being prepared are three partnership based transport and infrastructure related projects which require the support of the County Council. Officers have also promoted two location specific bids for Highways related works.
2.2 In addition there are a number of other bids which will be considered by the LEP Board on the 23 June 2016. The timetable for the preparation of the bids has been extremely tight and the bids themselves are still being developed. The Panel will therefore be given a verbal update on the general progress and development of the bids.
Agenda Pack 345 of 353 1 3. Recommendation/s
3.1 The Panel is asked to note the Growth Deal 3 bids currently being prepared and advise the Executive Member on any matters to be raised at the Local Transport Body meeting which considers the bids.
4. Background
4.1 Growth Deal 3 was launched by Greg Clark at the end of April 2016. This is the process by which all the LEPs in the country can come forward with bids to access money from the Single Local Growth Fund.
4.2 In previous rounds Hertfordshire LEP has been very successful in obtaining funding for a number of projects, including contributions to the Croxley Rail Link and funding for the A 120 Little Hadham By Pass and A 602 Improvements.
4.3 The priorities for GD3 projects, as set out by Government, are that they must lead to additional growth beyond that set out in Growth Deals 1 and 2; they must be underpinned by collaboration and reformed governance; they must have private sector engagement and investment and /or be employer led; they must engage with the Government’s wider objectives; and they must be informed by progress on Growth Deal 1 and 2 and value for money.
4.4 In terms of the LEP’s response, this is to be shaped by the emerging Review of the Strategic Economic Plan. Whilst the Review is still to be completed, it is clear that the four main priorities identified within the existing strategy will be maintained. However what will be refreshed is the approach to those Priorities and how they are delivered.
4.5 In line with this, the LEP have identified a “short list” of projects to be considered by the LEP Board in June 2016. The majority of the Projects relate to either Skills or Business Development matters, but following initial discussions with officers, three projects have been identified within the “place” theme, where the County Council has a direct interest.
4.6 The three projects are:- 1. Stevenage Town Centre Regeneration – Renewing Stevenage Station 2. Maylands Enterprise Zone Infrastructure 3. A 414 Corridor
4.7 In more detail the projects are as follows:
Agenda Pack 346 of 353 2
4.7.1 Renewing Stevenage Station
4.7.1.1Construction of a new railway station in Stevenage town centre to replace the existing outdated and inadequate station. The new station will significantly contribute to the regeneration of the town centre, stimulate housing growth, safeguard existing high value jobs and create new ones, and encourage the growth of businesses (especially corporates) in one of Hertfordshire’s key centres of employment.
4.7.1.2The station renewal scheme will bring operational improvements by enabling the station to handle significantly increased numbers of passengers more safely by addressing existing congestion and safety issues for the long term and helping to better accommodate the planned 5th platform that is part of the Thameslink programme of network improvements.
4.7.1.3The new facility will offer a much greater and more secure additional income for Network Rail and train operating companies (TOCs) through a greatly improved retail offer that will help tie it more closely to the town and its surroundings. It will also stimulate creation of a new theatre and leisure centre, and enable the transformation of land currently being used for surface level car parking and carriageway that severs the town’s employment and town centre functions into valuable office and retail space by the provision of a multi-storey parking, construction of a new transport interchange better connecting bus, taxi and rail services and encouraging the uptake of sustainable transport to help address congestion issues.
4.7.2. Maylands Enterprise Zone Infrastructure
4.7.2.1This project proposes upgrades to transport infrastructure which serves the Enterprise Zone at Maylands Business Park, Hemel Hempstead including potential upgrades to the A414 and M1 Junction 8 which will support wider economic growth in the area, and provide capacity for planned and any future housing growth in the area.
4.7.2.2It also includes as a package of transport infrastructure scheme concepts that in combination will provide an improvement to existing traffic and travel conditions in the area, improve access to the Maylands industrial area, make journeys by more sustainable modes of travel more feasible and attractive than they are at present and help facilitate planned new development, including growth within Maylands, Spencer’s Park and the East Hemel Hempstead development in conjunction with developer-led infrastructure measures.
4.7.2.3It also includes a study regarding what infrastructure needed to be in place for the development of new greenfield sites on the Enterprise Zone to accommodate the growth.
Agenda Pack 347 of 353 3 4.7.3. A 414 Transport Strategy
4.7.3.1This project proposes developing an overall transport and growth strategy for the A414 transport corridor. The strategy will require a detailed study to examine the transport needs of the proposed and emerging growth options, their implications, and how they can be delivered along the A414 in Hertfordshire between Harlow to the east and Hemel Hempstead to the west.
4.8 In addition to these major schemes, two additional bids have been submitted in connection with specific capital bids for highway infrastructure associated with specific growth proposals. These two schemes are:
4.8.1 A10 Buntingford south infrastructure improvements
4.8.1.1This project proposes major improvements to the roundabout on the A10 where it meets London Road, the southern exit from Buntingford. This improvement will address capacity issues on the roundabout which will evolve at the result of future development in and around the town and, if not addressed, will cause severe congestion on the A10 itself and within the town. The project will also ensure the roundabout is future-proofed against the need to dual the A10 south of this roundabout in the future although that does not form part of this project.
4.8.2 Essex Road Gateway Infrastructure Project, Hoddesdon
4.8.2.1This project proposes major improvements to the infrastructure at the gateway to the Essex Road employment area in Hoddesdon. This will include a new or significantly upgraded bridge over the New River and the road links to either side of it along with all-modes improvements along Essex Road from the Dinant Link Road though the employment area.
4.9 The final bids have to be submitted to the Department of Business, Innovation and skills (BIS) by the end of July 2016. This makes the timetable for their formal consideration and agreement by all the Partners very tight.
4.10 The LEP Board are scheduled to consider all the draft bids on the 23 June 2016 to agree in principle the content and number of projects to be supported, before final bids are submitted by the end of July 2016.
4.11 The transport related bids will also be referred to the Local Transport Body for their views under the Terms of the Assurance Framework which governs LEP funding.
Agenda Pack 348 of 353 4 5. Conclusions
5.1 All of the major bids are effectively seeking to raise the profile of locations or corridors in the county where future investment in transport infrastructure will be required to support anticipated levels of growth. They reflect the emerging priorities of the Revised Strategic Economic Plan and, from a Hertfordshire County Council perspective, are also in line with existing policy and the draft list of major schemes which have emerged through the Transport Vision process.
5.2 However, it is recognised that the partnership bids are largely at this stage for revenue funding to support the development of future capital schemes and GF3 will only have a small amount of revenue funding available. The bids more realistically therefore represent an attempt to put these projects on the map and raise their profile, so that they are recognised by Central Government when future bids for capital funds are made for future rounds of the Growth Deal (GD) Funding or other funding sources.
6. Financial Implications
6.1 Depending on the outcome of the bidding process, there may be the need to match fund some of the individual elements of projects within the bids. At present, the bids for revenue are based on match funding levels which could be accommodated within existing budget provision. For the capital schemes match funding would be anticipated to come from existing and future S 106 contributions.
7. Equalities Implications
7.1 At this stage none of the projects have been subject to full Equalities Assessment. However the three major schemes proposed are all contained within the consultation draft of the Transport Vision document, which has been subject to EqIA.
Agenda Pack 349 of 353 5 HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Agenda Item No.
ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING & TRANSPORT CABINET PANEL THURSDAY, 30 JUNE 2016 at 10.00 AM 10 COMMITTEE ROOM B
ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING & TRANSPORT PERFORMANCE MONITOR
Report of the Chief Executive & Director of Environment
Author: Simon Aries, Assistant Director Transport, Waste & Environmental Management Environment (Tel: 01992 555255)
Jan Hayes-Griffin, Assistant Director Planning, Strategy & Communications (Tel: 01992 555203)
Executive Member: Derrick Ashley, Environment, Planning & Transport
1. Purpose of report
1.1 To allow the Panel to review the performance of Environment, Planning and Transport for the fourth quarter of this year (January – March 2016) against the Environment Department Service Plan 2015-2016 including key performance indicators, major projects, contracts and identified risks.
2. Summary
2.1 The Cabinet Panel receives a suite of Annual Performance Reports including:
Local Transport Plan (LTP) – Annual Performance Report (APR) (Q3 or Q4 depending on external data from Government and other sources). TD APR – Traffic and Data Annual Performance Report
2.2 Environment, Planning and Transport Performance Indicators continue to be reported at the Members Advisory Group.
3. Recommendation
3.1 The Cabinet Panel is invited to note the report and comment on the performance monitor for Quarter 4 2015-16.
Agenda Pack 350 of 353 1
4. Strategic Performance Indicators, Contracts and Projects
4.1 Bus punctuality
4.1.1. - % of buses leaving terminus within acceptable timeframe the higher the better) - % of buses within acceptable timeframe at intermediate timing points (LTP5 indicator) (the higher the better)
4.1.2. The bus punctuality targets are set by the Traffic Commissioner in Statutory Document No. 14. New targets came into effect at the beginning of April 2015 and are as follows: a. The %age of buses leaving terminus (departures) within acceptable timeframe target is 95% b. The %age of buses within acceptable timeframe at intermediate timing points target is 95% (previously 85%)
4.1.3. The percentage of buses leaving terminus within an acceptable timeframe has decreased from 94.1% in Q3 to 83.1% in Q4.
4.1.4. The percentage of buses within acceptable timeframe at intermediate timing points in Q3 decreased from 92.9% in Q3 to 81.6% in Q4.
4.2 Figures for the year 2015 - 2016 are below the target of 95% although above the Traffic Commissioners minimum target of 80%, as the team were putting all their resources into monitoring a poor performing bus company due to complaints from the public about performance. The Officers worked with the company to try to resolve issues with driver behaviour and timetables, but the company was suffering from driver shortages at the time. This is now being rectified by the company as they have their own driver training program in place.
By recording poor performance whilst monitoring these services, this was reflected by recording low percentages for the 4th quarter and for the year. However, by continued monitoring of these poor performing routes and working with the company to resolve issues this should improve the services to the public.
4.3 The timeliness of decisions for all County Matter planning applications
4.3.1. The Q4 figure was 100% against a national target of 40%. Of the 9 applications, 5 were determined under a written agreement for an extension of time.
Agenda Pack 351 of 353 2
5. Risks
Environment, Planning and Transport has 1 corporate level risk and it is as follows:
5.1 Tree Health (Risk ENV0142)
5.1.1. Due to the threat of an increasing number of tree pests and diseases, in particular the imminent threat from Ash Dieback, there is a risk of a significant number of trees being affected which may result in significant unplanned costs, potential dangers to the public and/or service users, impacts on the landscape and loss of biodiversity.
5.1.2. A report to Resources & Performance Cabinet Panel (July 2015) introduced tree health issues and the potential implications to Hertfordshire County Council. Members of the panel approved a set of recommendations for officers to undertake to help mitigate the threats identified. In October 2015 the Performance and Resources Officer Group (PROG) determined that the imminent threat of Ash Dieback has the potential to impact on the future of trees and woodlands in the County with significant cost implications for individuals, landowners and local authorities and so a corporate risk needed to be developed.
5.1.3. The Assistant Director Transport, Waste and Environmental Management has taken ownership of this risk; the Countryside Management Service (CMS) has been working with the Risk Management team, Highways and Property to develop the risk and key controls. There is currently no way to effectively stop the spread or treat/cure Ash Dieback; it is already present in the county so the likelihood of spread is almost certain. However, a number of controls have been identified and some of these, including advice and guidance to partners, schools and landowners are starting to be put in place to reduce the impact of this risk, which is currently seen as high.
5.1.4. The current score is therefore red 40 (severe).
6. Financial Implications
6.1 There are no financial implications arising from this report.
7. Equalities Implications
7.1 When considering proposals placed before Members it is important that they are fully aware of, and have themselves rigorously considered the equality implications of the decision that they are making.
Agenda Pack 352 of 353 3 7.2 Rigorous consideration will ensure that proper appreciation of any potential impact of that decision on the County Council’s statutory obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty. As a minimum this requires decision makers to read and carefully consider the content of any Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) produced by officers.
7.3 The Equality Act 2010 requires the County Council when exercising its functions to have due regard to the need to (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other conduct prohibited under the Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it and (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 are age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation.
7.4 No equality implications have been identified in relation to this report although Panel will not make a decision in respect of its contents.
8. Internal Audit
8.1 There were no high priority recommendations by audit and no Internal Audit opinions were issued in this quarter with a ‘limited assurance’ or ‘no assurance’ level.
Background Information
Resources & Performance Cabinet Panel - 8 July 2015
Agenda Pack 353 of 353 4