DOCSLIB.ORG

Green Belt Exceptional Circumstances – Overarching Issues and the Relationship Between the JSP and Local Plans (Polices 2 and 7.1-7.2)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Green Belt Exceptional Circumstances – Overarching Issues and the Relationship Between the JSP and Local Plans (Polices 2 and 7.1-7.2) HEARING STATEMENT Peter Brett Associates on behalf of IM Land Matter 2: Strategic Development Locations and Green Belt Exceptional Circumstances – Overarching Issues and the Relationship between the JSP and Local Plans (Polices 2 and 7.1-7.2) Introduction 1. This statement has been prepared by Peter Brett Associates, now part of Stantec (PBA), on behalf of IM Land (IM), regarding the soundness of the emerging West of England Joint Spatial Plan and specifically in response to questions relating to the SDLs and Green Belt exceptional circumstances. 2. IM agree that for sustainability reasons, exceptional circumstances exist to support some growth within the Green Belt, close to the urban locations of Bristol and Bath. 3. IM’s Regulation 19 representations explain in Section 3 and Appendix B, why the selection of the Banwell, Buckover and Churchill SDLs should not have been selected in preference to the alternative SDL at Pucklechurch West which is more consistent with the urban living focus and the infrastructure and jobs around the Bristol north east fringe. 4. IM recognises the JSP is a strategic plan and in accordance with paragraph 157 of the NPPF is proposing to illustrate broad strategic development locations; however, this makes it difficult to test the appropriateness of general areas. In redefining Green Belt boundaries, sometimes it is the defined boundary that determines appropriateness. 5. Infrastructure, particularly transport is an essential ingredient of sustainable development and the selection of SDLs. It is referenced in many parts of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) process. A strategic plan which is unable to specify necessary strategic infrastructure, or which defers it to other documents is not a justified plan that provides a clear indication of how a decision maker should react (as per NPPF2012 para 154). 6. It is difficult to see how future Local Plans, which are being used as the mechanism for making the formal Green Belt changes can be made exempt for being considered against paragraphs 135-141 of NPPF2018 with regard to the SDLs. Question 2.1: The 12 strategic development locations and proposed amendments to the Green Belt will be considered in more detail in Matters 7.1 – 7.12. However, have the identified strategic development locations (SDLs) been selected in preference to possible alternatives on the basis of a robust, objective and consistent approach and is the 500- dwelling threshold for the SDLs appropriate? 7. No, IM has expressed concerns about the robustness of each stage of the SA process as part of earlier representations. Three pre-submission SAs have been prepared, in 2015, 2016, 2017 plus an addendum note in April 2018 followed by a Consolidated SA in November 2018 (WED009), which post-dates the submission of Regulation 19 representations in January 2018 and submission of the Publication Plan for Examination. 8. IM’s objections at Regulation 19 stage, about the way the SAs were prepared, remain unanswered in the addendum (SD9L) or the additional appendices which appear to sit alongside the earlier SAs. It also appears that the LPAs recognised the flaws with the SA process by the production of a post submission Consolidated SA (WED009), which appraises 3 new alternative development scenarios plus a re-appraisal of what it describes as the 5 original alternative development scenarios set out in SD9L. In all, WED009 re-writes and replaces what must now be accepted as flawed SAs that were used to guide the preparation of the Submission Draft JSP. 9. IM recognise that limited Main Modifications have now been published, but these do not change the underlying issue that some SDL locations are unsustainable and not consistent with National Policy or \\Pba.int\bri\Projects\40168 Land at North East Bristol\Technical\Planning\JSP\Hearing Information\Hearing Statements\Matter 2 - SDLs and Green Belt Exceptional Circumstances\20190524_Matter 2 - SDLs and GB Exceptional Circumstances.docx Page 1 of 12 HEARING STATEMENT represent an appropriate, let alone the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. Its objections at Regulation 19 stage to the selection of Banwell, Buckover and Churchill remain unanswered. In response to question 2.1 the following summary is provided: Robustness 10. The fact that the WED009 (November 2018) is almost a full, post submission re-write of previous SAs demonstrates the WoE accept their original approach was not sufficiently robust. The issue is that the current SA did not guide the pre-submission plan making process. Objectiveness 11. In respect of land at Pucklechurch (omission site) the SA was not objective from the outset. It included land that is not part of IM’s proposals and did not fully explore the benefits of this location. Furthermore, it highlights some of the issues that the first 3 SAs raised in respect of Buckover, Banwell and Churchill. Section 3.2 of IM’s original Regulation 19 representations sets out the benefits of Pucklechurch West. By way of an example to demonstrate the shortcomings, IM’s vision document appended to this statement (Appendix 1) revisits the findings of the Consolidated SA and applies the criteria to the site (excluding wider land that formed part of the M4 to Shortwood site). 12. To further illustrate the point, extracts from the SA scores set out in document SD9G Appendix G is provided in Appendix 2 to show how Pucklechurch West performs more sustainably when compared with Banwell, Buckover and Churchill. 13. For a site which is more consistent with the urban living focus (being on the north eastern edge of Bristol), it is unclear why it was dismissed very early in the plan preparation process. Consistent 14. As set out in IM’s Matter 1 Hearing Statement (Q.1.4(c)) there are inconsistencies in the way the SA was used to assess potential SDLs. These are also set out in IM’s Regulation 19 representations (paras 2.4.43-2.4.55), with one such inconsistency being that potential SDL assessments are inaccurate and unjustified. 15. The SDLs of Banwell and Churchill are located a greater distance from the nearest urban centre with poorer sustainable transport connections to existing services and facilities than other locations yet have been scored better. For example, Banwell and Curchill SDLs scored higher for SA categories 2c (access to community facilities), 2d (access to education) and 2e (access to town centres) than West Pucklechurch. However, Banwell and Churchill are located approximately 8km and 11km from the centre of Weston-super-Mare respectively, whereas West Pucklechurch is approximately 2km from the new Emersons Green centre. 16. Furthermore, it was placed in the “dispersed” locational typology even as late as April 2018, despite being near to both Emersons Green centre and Emersons Green Enterprise Zone with good existing sustainable transport connections and opportunities for further improvements. 17. It is therefore not clear how the location assessments and scoring has been carried out consistently across all of the potential SDL sites. 18. With particular regard to the Green Belt assessment, the consultation document is clear that it is not possible to sustainably accommodate all the identified West of England growth needs entirely outside the Green Belt. Thus some development will need to take place within the Bristol and Bath Green Belt. In reviewing the JSP assessment methodology and summary, there are four overarching matters which indicate the process has not been undertaken in a robust and consistent manner: a) With regard to Green Belt Purpose 1, the authors have conflated ‘unrestricted sprawl’ issues with coalescence. This approach evidently does not correlate to Green Belt Purpose 1, nor the methods; and b) Conversely, with specific reference to cells 26b and 26c to the west of Pucklechurch, and with regard to Purpose 2, the authors have accepted that the land between Bristol and Pucklechurch does not contribute to the purpose of preventing the ‘merging’ of towns; c) In relation to the role of the landscape between Yate and Coalpit Heath SDLs, very little weight appears to have been given to the manner in which growth might be perceived from the adjoining landscape as part of a combined release where there could be up to a 50% reduction \\Pba.int\bri\Projects\40168 Land at North East Bristol\Technical\Planning\JSP\Hearing Information\Hearing Statements\Matter 2 - SDLs and Green Belt Exceptional Circumstances\20190524_Matter 2 - SDLs and GB Exceptional Circumstances.docx Page 2 of 12 HEARING STATEMENT in the ‘gap’ (in that case). The evidence base does not determine robust and defensible boundaries, it merely indicates aspirational green corridors to separate adjoining SDLs, yet this is a fundamental element of the functioning of the Green Belt and the prevention of unrestricted sprawl. d) In relation to cells 26b and 26c, the JSP assessment elevates the parcels’ role by attributing an in-combination role with the adjoining cell (26a - Pucklechurch Ridge), which does in fact provide a defensive boundary and separation from Bristol. These three parcels together are considered to perform a ‘major contribution’ to the Green Belt Purpose 1 which we would agree with. However, it is cell 26a that performs the most strongly in relation to Purpose 1 and if cells 26b and 26c are considered independently and they are considered not to make a major contribution to Purpose 1 in the same way. 19. PBA’s Regulation 19 representations (paras 2.4.31-2.4.41) expand on these concerns relating to the JSP’s Green Belt assessment. Question 2.2: In principle is it a justified and effective approach for the JSP to identify Strategic Development Locations (SDLs) in only broad and indicative terms and to leave to Local Plans the formal allocation of sites for the SDLS? 20.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Appendix F CAPABILITY MODELLING
    Ref: 139797 Version: 1.1 Date: June 2015 Appendix F CAPABILITY MODELLING Governance of Railway Investment Projects Ref: 139797 Version: 1.1 Date: June 2015 This page left deliberately blank Governance of Railway Investment Projects Group Strategy - Capability Analysis MetroWest Phase 2 Report Rhys Bowen Group Strategy – Capability Analysis MetroWest Phase 2 Report Document Control Scheme Name MetroWest Phase 2 Report Document Ref. No. Document V:\SAP-Project\CA000000 - MetroWest RSV8 TH\004 Report\Phase Two Location Version No. 1.0 Status Final Author Rhys Bowen Version Date 15/12/2014 Security Level Unrestricted Authorisation Control Lee Mowle Signature Date Project Manager –Capability Analysis (Document Owner) Alistair Rice Signature Date Major Schemes Project Manager - South Gloucester council Andrew Holley Signature Date Senior development Manager - Network Rail Group Strategy – Capability Analysis MetroWest Phase 2 Report DOCUMENT CONTROL & ADMINISTRATION Change Record Version Date Author(s) Comments 0.1 12/09/14 Rhys Bowen First Draft 0.2 17/09/14 Rhys Bowen Amended after diagrams added 0.3 18/09/14 Rhys Bowen Amended after review 0.4 23/09/14 Rhys Bowen Amended after review 0.5 26/09/14 Rhys Bowen Draft for external review 0.6 04/11/14 Rhys Bowen Final draft for internal review 0.7 07/11/14 Rhys Bowen Final draft for external review 0.8 28/11/14 Toby Hetherington Minor amendments to final draft. Further minor amendments and report 1.0 15/12/14 Toby Hetherington finalised. Reviewers Version Date Reviewer(s) Review Notes Structure
    [Show full text]
  • Roadworks and Traffic Interruptions Alert Tuesday 28.05.19 from Roadworks.Org
    Roadworks and traffic interruptions alert Tuesday 28.05.19 from roadworks.org Weekly email alert. Traffic restrictions and roadworks starting within the next week. Alert name: Displaying 21 roadworks Roadworks A200 Duke Street Hill, London, Southwark 02 June — 03 June Delays likely Traffic control (Stop/Go boards) Works location: Unknown Works description: 2 x Mobile apparatus - CW - TM- No encroachment on duke st hill westbound no. Stop /go boards to entrance of terminal; FW - Footways open and site marshalled. PEDS escorted by site marshal operatives if footway is closed for short periods - working hours: 2200-0500 - 24h contact: Matt Horbacki 02033228188 Responsibility for works: Transport for London Current status: Planned work about to start Works reference: YG450408708 Abson Road, Pucklechurch, South Gloucestershire 03 June — 03 July Delays likely Road closure Works location: Abson Rd from junction with B4465 Shortwood Rd to junction with Holbrook Lane. Works description: Carriageway surface dressing works Responsibility for works: South Gloucestershire Current status: Planned work about to start Works reference: RZ11700013944 Abson Road, Wick, South Gloucestershire 03 June — 03 July Delays likely Road closure Works location: Abson Rd from junction with B4465 Shortwood Rd to junction with Holbrook Lane. Works description: Carriageway surface dressing works Responsibility for works: South Gloucestershire Current status: Planned work about to start Works reference: RZ11700013945 B4465 Shortwood Road, Pucklechurch, South Gloucestershire 03 June — 03 July Delays likely Road closure Works location: B4465 Shortwood Rd & Westerleigh Rd from Dennisworth Farm to St Aldams Nursery. Works description: Carriageway surface dressing works Responsibility for works: South Gloucestershire Current status: Planned work about to start Works reference: RZ11700013964 B4465 Westerleigh Road, Pucklechurch, South Gloucestershire 30 May — 31 May Delays likely Traffic control (two-way signals) Works location: Approx 45 m of RHS of 121.
    [Show full text]
  • HLOS and Unlocking the Local Rail Network
    Information Sheet 5 Issue 1: July 2013 RUS - Network Rail Great Western Route Utilisation Strategy HLOS - High Level Output Specification ORR CP5 - Office of Rail Regulation ‘control period 5’ spending LTPP – Long Term Planning Process The Network Rail Great Western RUS was published on 1st March 2010. This sets the strategy for Network Rail going forwards for the next 30 years. Proposals within the RUS which will benefit train services in the West of England area include: · Bristol Temple Meads to Parson · Additional rolling stock for services Street four tracking; between Bristol Temple Meads and · Train lengthening Manchester and Gloucester, Portsmouth, Taunton and Gloucester to Bristol Temple Meads Cardiff; and Cardiff to Portsmouth and · Electrification of the Great Western Taunton; mainline and opportunities for electric · Increased line speed Bristol Temple services on the Greater Bristol Metro Meads to Bridgwater; (now known as MetroWest); · Filton Bank three/four tracking; · Bath Spa capacity upgrade · Bristol Temple Meads to Yate half (committed scheme 2009 to 2014); hourly extension; · Westerleigh Junction to Barnt Green · Bristol Temple Meads to Bath (with linespeed increase (committed possible extension to Clifton scheme 2009 to 2014). Down/Avonmouth) additional services; Whilst the RUS sets the strategy, Network Rail funding for schemes is determined by the High Level Output Specification (HLOS) that covers the period 2014 to 2019. High Level Output Specification The Department for Transport published its High Level Output Specification (HLOS) document on 16 July 2012. This set out major rail capacity schemes over the period 2014 to 2019 (known in the rail industry as Control Period 5).
    [Show full text]
  • Network Rail Response to Grand Union Trains Wales Application- 30
    OFFICIAL 30 October 2020 Gareth Clancy Head of Access and Licensing By email only Dear Gareth Grand Union Trains Section 17 Application between London and Carmarthen: Capacity and Performance Assessment I am writing in response to your letter of 16 October 2020. Network Rail has been working on assessing the Grand Union Trains Ltd (GUTL) applications in good faith. We have taken a methodical and logical progression of work to assess the applications. A timeline showing the work undertaken by Network Rail to assess the GUTL applications is in Annex 1. This demonstrates the volume of work which has been undertaken to assess the applications, as well as the considerable effort by Network Rail to assist GUTL in finding compliant proposals for train slots. It is only with the latest iteration of the proposed service specification that Network Rail and GUTL are in a position to understand which parts of the proposition can have a compliant train and platform plan; this will now allow meaningful performance modelling to be carried out. The static performance analysis conducted so far on the various GUTL applications using historic performance data shows there is a potential performance risk which is why the detailed modelling is required. The Coronavirus pandemic has significantly impacted the railway industry, with a collapse in passenger numbers, which has been sustained for several months. As service levels were reduced, there was an immediate improvement in punctuality and performance on the network. Indeed, during the early months of the pandemic, punctuality reached record levels with the proportion of trains arriving on time, to the minute, rising to 80-90% and around 95% of trains routinely arriving within 5-10 minutes of their scheduled time.
    [Show full text]
  • Tales of the Vale: Stories from a Forgotten Landscape
    Tales of the Vale: Stories from A Forgotten Landscape The view from St Arilda’s, Cowhill A collection of history research and oral histories from the Lower Severn Vale Levels (Photo © James Flynn 2014) Tales of the Vale Landscape 5 Map key Onwards towards Gloucestershire – Contents Shepperdine and Hill Tales of the Vale Landscape 4 Around Oldbury-on-Severn – Kington, Cowill, Oldbury Introduction 3 and Thornbury Discover A Forgotten Tales of the Vale: Landscape through our Tales of the Vale Landscape 3 walks and interpretation From the Severn Bridge to Littleton-upon-Severn – points Aust, Olveston and Littleton-upon-Severn 1. North-West Bristol – Avonmouth, Shirehampton and Lawrence Weston 6 Tales of the Vale Landscape 2 2. From Bristol to the Severn Bridge – From Bristol to the Severn Bridge – Easter Compton, Almondsbury, Severn Beach, Pilning, Redwick and Northwick 40 Easter Compton, Almondsbury, Severn Beach, Pilning, Redwick Walk start point and Northwick 3. From the Severn Bridge to Littleton-upon-Severn – Aust, Olveston and Littleton-upon-Severn 68 Interpretation Tales of the Vale Landscape 1 4. Around Oldbury-on-Severn – Kington, Cowill, Oldbury and Thornbury 80 North-West Bristol – Avonmouth, Shirehampton Toposcope and Lawrence Weston 5. Onwards towards Gloucestershire – Shepperdine and Hill 104 Contributors 116 (© South Gloucestershire Council, 2017. All rights reserved. © Crown copyright and database rights 2017 Ordnance Survey 100023410. Introduction to the CD 122 Contains Royal Mail data © Royal Mail copyright and database right 2017. Tales of the Vale was edited by Virginia Contains National Statistics data © Crown copyright and database right 2017. Bainbridge and Julia Letts with additional Acknowledgements 124 editing by the AFL team © WWT Consulting) Introduction Introducing Tales of the Vale Big skies: a sense of light and vast open space with two colossal bridges spanning the silt-laden, extraordinary River Severn.
    [Show full text]
  • 620 Bus Time Schedule & Line Route
    620 bus time schedule & line map 620 Old Sodbury - Bath View In Website Mode The 620 bus line (Old Sodbury - Bath) has 2 routes. For regular weekdays, their operation hours are: (1) Bath City Centre: 6:15 AM - 3:15 PM (2) Old Sodbury: 7:30 AM - 5:45 PM Use the Moovit App to ƒnd the closest 620 bus station near you and ƒnd out when is the next 620 bus arriving. Direction: Bath City Centre 620 bus Time Schedule 60 stops Bath City Centre Route Timetable: VIEW LINE SCHEDULE Sunday Not Operational Monday 6:15 AM - 3:15 PM The Cross Hands, Old Sodbury Tuesday 6:15 AM - 3:15 PM Camers, Old Sodbury Wednesday 6:15 AM - 3:15 PM The Dog Inn, Old Sodbury Thursday 6:15 AM - 3:15 PM Commonmead Lane, Old Sodbury Friday 6:15 AM - 3:15 PM Colts Green, Chipping Sodbury Saturday 7:15 AM - 3:15 PM The Bell Hotel, Chipping Sodbury Station Close, Sodbury Civil Parish Kingrove Crescent, Chipping Sodbury 620 bus Info Direction: Bath City Centre The Boot, Chipping Sodbury Stops: 60 Trip Duration: 67 min The Clock, Chipping Sodbury Line Summary: The Cross Hands, Old Sodbury, Camers, Old Sodbury, The Dog Inn, Old Sodbury, 33 High Street, Yate Commonmead Lane, Old Sodbury, Colts Green, Chipping Sodbury, The Bell Hotel, Chipping Sodbury, Chipping Sodbury School, Chipping Sodbury Kingrove Crescent, Chipping Sodbury, The Boot, Chipping Sodbury, The Clock, Chipping Sodbury, Bowling Hill, Chipping Sodbury Chipping Sodbury School, Chipping Sodbury, Bowling Bowling Hill, Yate Hill, Chipping Sodbury, The Ridge, Yate, Shopping Centre, Yate, Wentworth, Yate, Sunningdale,
    [Show full text]
  • Fosbr Newsletter Number 88 May 2015 Highlighting Pilning's “Ghost”
    FoSBR Newsletter Number 88 May 2015 Highlighting Pilning’s “ghost” train service On Saturday 21st March Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways (FOSBR) invited local rail users to join them in riding a “parliamentary service” from Pilning railway station. A “parliamentary train” is a token service, run to avoid the cost of formal closure of a railway station. In the case of Pilning, this ghost service is provided by two trains on a Saturday, the 08:32 to Bristol Temple Meads and the 15:41 to Newport. 15 FOSBR members & friends took a roundabout route to Pilning, riding the “Beach Line” to Severn Beach and walking across fields and lanes to lunch at The Plough in Pilning. FOSBR then caught the westbound “parliamentary train” under the River Severn to Newport. In Newport the disabled lift was out of action so station staff helpfully re- platformed the next train to allow our colleague David to board the eastbound Bristol train in his wheelchair. This train provided a fleeting glimpse of Pilning station sleeping peacefully for another week. Pilning is only 2 miles from Severn Beach, Severn Beach station being convenient for a large number of local residents. Until 1964 the railway from Severn Beach continued north to Redwick Halt to loop around to join the South Wales Main Line via Pilning Low Level 1 station. Pilning station has massive potential for passengers in view of planned commercial developments nearby at West Gate, Western Approach and Central Park - covering many of the fields across which we walked. These new premises could employ 10,000+ workers in the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Trades. (Gloucestershire
    482 FAR TRADES. (GLOUCESTERSHIRE. FARMERs--continued. Jaques Richard & Arthur Johu, Sweet- Jordan Hugh, Pebworth, Stratford-on. Hunt J. Bledington, Kingham knowle, Preston-on-Stour, Stratford- Avon Bunt John, Blake's hill, Hinton-on-the- on-Avon Jordan Jn.Willersey,Broadway (Wares) Green, Evesham Jaques E.OldSodbury,OhippingSodburl Jordan Robert, Bisley, Stroud Bunt Timothy, St. Briavels, Lydney Jarrett Mrs. Elizabeth, Todenham, Jordan W. Lynes place, Taynton, Long- Hunt Mrs. W. C. Crook's marsh, H:tllen, Moreton-in-Marsh hope, Gloucester Bristol JarvisThos. Todenham,Moreton-in-Mrsh Jordan W. T. Broad Marston grounds, Hunt William, St. Briavels, Lydney JefferiesJn.Wall frm.Aldswrth.Nthleacb Broad Marston, Stratford-on-Avon Hurcombe T. & D. Leighterton,Tetbury Jeffries C. Windrush, Bmford (Oxon) Joseph Wm. _Rd. RuJ.dle oourt,Nwnhm Hurst Arthur Reginald, Little Barring- Jeffries Evan, Slaughter (Upper),Lower Joyce Fdk. H1gh hall, W!bdon, Chepstow ton, Rurford (Oxon) Slaughter Joyce Mrs. R. E. Tidenham, Chepstow Hutchings Thomas Arthnr Frederick, Jelf Wait. Wickeridge st.Hasfield,Glo'str Juffs Henry, Longborough,Moreton-in- Duntisbourne Abbotts, Cirencester Jenkins Thomas & John, ~ldsworth, the-Marsh Hn«;hinson Henry, Upper Coscombe, Northleach Kear Wal~er Joh'!, Bream, Lydney Wmc.hcombe JenkinsN.Clapton,Rourton-un-the-Watr KearseyR~eh~.S.F_urnace. ~lll,Longh?pe- Hutt R1chard, H<Jwens house, Charlton Jenkins Thomas, Morton, Thornbury Keedwell FrancJS W1lham, Na1te. Kings, Cheltenham Jenkins William, Hackett, Thornbury Oldbury-upon-Severn, Thornbury Hutton Robert, Brimpsfield, Gloucester Jenner Arthnr, Chariield ":eedwell Mark, Iron Act?n: Bristol Hyatt Benjamin Thomas, Sevenhamp- Jenner Arthur, Haresfield, Stonehouse Keen Albert, RedwiCk, P1lnmg, Br1stol ton, Andoversford Jenner E. Commonfield,Newent,Glo'ster Keen Cbas.
    [Show full text]
  • Covid Weekly Testing Unit Hawkesbury Village Hall
    Twice Weekly Covid-19 Testing Kits Will Be Available Through Mobile Facility in Communities Across South Gloucestershire We are introducing a mobile option that will take rapid (lateral flow) asymptomatic testing kits to communities across South Gloucestershire, as part of our support for all residents over the age of 16 without symptoms, who are now being encouraged to take twice weekly tests. A specially equipped vehicle will visit up to 14 locations across the district each week, giving people the option of collecting testing kits to complete at home, as well as the opportunity to take a test with guidance from trained staff if you are unfamiliar with the process. This programme will begin on Saturday 15 May, with visits to Kingswood and Thornbury High Streets. Testing is a central pillar, alongside the continued roll-out of the vaccine, and effective local contact tracing including supporting those who need to self-isolate, that will mean we can live safely with Covid-19 over the coming months. Together these steps, combined with individuals following the guidance on social distancing, hand hygiene, face coverings and fresh air, will help us along the road map out of restrictions and enable us to live safely with the coronavirus into the future. The Government is encouraging all residents over the age of 16, who do not have Covid-19 symptoms, to make regular, twice weekly testing, using rapid home test kits, part of their routine as we enjoy the increased opportunities to get out and mix safely with more people. The mobile offer will visit sites across the district regularly, including rural areas such as Hawkesbury, Marshfield, Severn Beach and Pucklechurch, as well as communities in Thornbury, Charfield, Cadbury Heath, Emersons Green and Patchway.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Spatial Plan Joint Transport Study Final Report October 2017
    WEST OF ENGLAND “BUILDING OUR FUTURE” West of England Joint Spatial Plan Joint Transport Study final report October 2017 NOVEMBER 2017 9 www.jointplanningwofe.org.uk West of England Joint Transport Study Final Report Notice This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for the West of England authorities’ information and use in relation to the West of England Joint Transport Study. Atkins Limited assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents. This document has 120 pages including the cover. Document history Job number: 5137782 Document ref: Final Report Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date Rev 1.0 First Draft JFC TP, SG RT, TM JFC 05/05/17 Rev 2.0 Second Draft JFC, TP 26/05/17 Rev 3.0 Third Draft JFC BD, SG RT JFC 07/06/17 Rev 4.0 Fourth Draft JFC SG RT JFC 21/06/17 Rev 5.0 5th Draft (Interim Version) JFC 27/06/17 Rev 6.0 Sixth Draft JFC SG RT JFC 28/06/17 Rev 7.0 Final Draft JFC RT RT JFC 07/07/17 Rev 8.0 Revised Final Draft JFC JFC 01/09/17 Rev 9.0 Final JFC SG RT JFC 19/10/17 Client signoff Client West of England authorities Project West of England Joint Transport Study Document title Final Report Job no. 5137782 Copy no. Document 5137782/Final Report reference Atkins West of England Joint Transport Study Final Report | October 2017 West of England Joint Transport Study Final Report Table of contents Chapter Pages 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Year Rail Delivery Plan 2030 to 2045 25 Year SOBC
    TEN YEAR RAIL DELIVERY PLAN DECEMBER 2020 West of England 10 Year Rail Delivery Plan for Investment: 2020 – 2030 November 2020 Document Control Document title West of England 10 Year Rail Delivery Plan Version and date v1 24/04/2020 v2 27/04/2020 Shared with Network Rail v3 09/06/2020 Issued to Strategic Rail Programme Board 09/06/2020 v4 15/07/2020 Issued to Strategic Rail Programme Steering Group 12/08/2020 v5 23/09/2020 Issued to Strategic Rail Working Group 25/09/2020 v6 16/10/2020 Issued to Strategic Rail Working Group and Strategic Rail Programme Steering Group on 16/10/2020. Minor changes made. v7 10/11/2020 Minor changes made following Transport Board on 04/11/2020 and other comments. v7.1 27/11/2020 Minor changes following comments made at Leaders and Mayor’s meeting Author James White, WECA Reviewed by Tamsin Dangerfield, Network Rail Strategic Rail Programme Steering Group Strategic Rail Working Group 1 Contents Introduction Summary 1. Objectives for the 10 Year Rail Delivery Plan 2. What all schemes need to demonstrate 3. Beyond Coivd-19 - legacy and future planning 4. Existing schemes for delivery in the first five years of the 10 Year Rail Delivery Plan 5. Pipeline Projects, New Stations Fund, Restoring Your Railway and other schemes that could come forward 2020 to 2030 6. New schemes for delivery and development 2020 to 2030 – Table One 7. Business Case approach to delivering schemes 8. Governance 9. Programme 10. Funding 11. Risks 12. Longer term – 25 Year Strategic Outline Business Case 13.
    [Show full text]
  • Network Rail Strategic Business Plan Control Period 4
    Network Rail Strategic Business Plan Control Period 4 October 2007 Contents Contents Executive summary 1 1 The strategic context 20 2 The demand for rail 25 3 The industry strategy 33 4 Network Rail’s policies and strategies 52 5 Efficiency and input prices 84 6 Our plan for CP4 119 7 Expenditure and financing 171 8 Outputs 174 9 Options and sensitivities 194 10 Summary of future developments 201 Appendices 204 Network Rail October 2007 Strategic Business Plan 1 Executive summary summary Executive Executive summary The last review was therefore necessary to place the business on a secure financial footing so that The demand for both passenger and freight rail we could begin to address these problems services has increased dramatically over the last together with our industry partners in Control decade. Last year alone, total passenger Period 3 (CP3). demand increased by more than eight per cent and freight demand has also continued to grow Change is a gradual process not just in the strongly. railway but elsewhere as well. Despite this, we are approaching the 2008 periodic review from a Moreover, there is a clear consensus throughout very different position compared to the last the industry that demand growth from review. We always said that the early years of passengers and freight users will remain strong Network Rail were about stabilising the company for the foreseeable future. Increasing congestion while preparing for the further challenges ahead on roads and increasing environmental sensitivity and we have now largely completed the first two mean that rail should be well placed to continue phases of our three-phase transformation winning market share.
    [Show full text]