DOCSLIB.ORG

Development Control Committee

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Development Control Committee DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE 14 NOVEMBER 2016 COUNCILLOR’S ADDITIONAL PAPERS - INDEX OF DOCUMENTS CIRCULATED AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA 1. Speaking Commitment (Page 3) 2. Application 01 - 15/01533/OUTEIS i. Submission from Mr Andrew Gurney - Tenant Farmer of Eaton Leys Farm Water Eaton (Pages 4 to 8) ii. Submission from Development Management Manager – Aylesbury Vale District Council (Pages 9 to 12) iii. Submission from Highway Development Management – Buckinghamshire County Council (Pages 13 to 14) iv. Submissions from Liz Rawlinson – COBRA and The Mill Residents Association (Pages 15 to 23) v. Submission from Little Brickhill Parish Council (Pages 24 to 25) vi. Submission from Bletchley and Fenny Town Council (Pages 26 to 27) vii. Submission from Tracey Everard - Resident (Page 28) viii. Submission from Reg Edwards – COBRA (Pages 29 to 74) ix. Submissions from Newton Longville Parish Council (Pages 75 to 132) x. Submission from Director of Barton Willmore (Developer) (Pages 133 to 135) xi. Submissions from the following (Pages 136 to 145): Paul Simpson - Resident Peter Bellingham - Resident Alan & Pat Smith - Resident David Sutton - Resident (1) Christopher Leech - Resident Debbie Evans Sue Malleson - Resident Mike Crayford-West- Resident Mike Powell - Resident Councillor Petchey (with responses from Senior Planning Officer) Clerk to Stoke Hammond Parish Council Anne Baker - Resident Mike Robinson - Vice-Chair Stoke Hammond Parish Council Joel Cockerill – Resident Melanie Marshman – Resident Lucy Moore - Resident (2) SPEAKING LIST SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14 NOVEMBER 2016 APPLICATION TITLE REQUESTS TO SPEAK IN TIME RIGHT OF REPLY TIME NO. OBJECTION ALLOCATED OR SPEAKERS IN ALLOCATED FAVOUR 15/01533/OUTEIS Land at Eaton Leys, Galley Cllr Alan Webb (Ward (3 Mins) Mr Michael Knott (24 Mins) Lane, Little Brickhill Councillor) Applicant’s agent Cllr Sean Porter (Bletchley (3 Mins) and Fenny Stratford Town Council) Mr Steve Heath and Cllr Kate Ward (Newton Longville (3 Mins) Parish Council) Mr R Edwards (Consortium of Bletchley (3 Mins) Resident’s Association) Mrs E Rawlinson (3 Mins) (Mill Road Resident’s Association) Dr David S Neil FSA (3 Mins) Dr Andrew Smith (3 Mins) Mr Andrew Gurney (Tenant (3 Mins) Farmer) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) AYLESBURY VALE DISTRICT COUNCIL Customer Fulfilment Please ask for: Susan Kitchen Direct Line: (01296) 585436 Switchboard: (01296) 585858 Text Relay: prefix telephone number with 18001 Email: [email protected] Our Ref: Your Ref: 10 November 2016 [email protected] Dear Ms Hine Application Number: 15/01533/OUTEIS Outline planning application with all matters reserved for a residential-led development including up to 1,800 dwellings, distributed between Aylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes as follows: Within Milton Keynes; the development of up to 600 dwellings, a local centre to include retail and a community centre, a health centre, land reserved for a one 1 form of entry primary school, associated highway infrastructure including one proposed vehicular accesses with the A4146, one proposed pedestrian and cycle bridge crossing the river Ouzel, multi-functional public open space, informal amenity space, children's play space, open space incorporating the scheduled monument, surface water attenuation and strategic landscaping, and associated services and utilities infrastructure. Within Aylesbury Vale; the demolition of all existing farm buildings (except farmhouse) and the development of up to 1,200 dwellings, one 2 forms of entry primary school, associated highway infrastructure including one proposed vehicular accesses with the A4146, one proposed pedestrian and cycle bridge crossing the river Ouzel, multi-functional public open space, informal amenity space, children's play space, playing fields, allotments, surface water attenuation and strategic landscaping, and associated services and utilities infrastructure. AT Land At Eaton Leys, Galley Lane, Little Brickhill I am writing following the publication of the report to the Development Control Committee on 14 November 2016 regarding the above planning application. As you are aware, there are submitted 2 applications for a development which crosses the boundary between our respective authorities, with upto 600 dwellings in Milton Keynes Council’s administrative boundary and upto 1200 dwellings within Aylesbury Vale District Council and Buckinghamshire County Council’s administrative areas, together with related facilities and infrastructure. The applications have been the subject of considerable discussions between Milton Keynes and Aylesbury Vale District Council’s officers for many months however Aylesbury Vale District Council were not aware until 17 October 2016 that a report was being prepared for this particular committee date to consider the application within Milton Keynes nor that the likely recommendation was for approval, subject to a S106 agreement. We had expected to agree co ordination of reporting to committee in the spirit of a collaborative approach. It therefore has come as a surprise to officers and members of this Council as well as that of officers at Buckinghamshire County Council, and I am therefore writing on behalf of Aylesbury Vale District Council to make representations for the members of the committee’s consideration. The Gateway, Gatehouse Road, Aylesbury Bucks HP19 8FF DX 4130 Aylesbury www.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk (9) I do not consider that the officer report accurately reflects this position as set out in paragraphs 5.61 and 5.62 . Aylesbury Vale District Council have sought to take a proactive approach to identify all of the relevant planning issues and to seek to resolve those matters where appropriate and not to frustrate or delay a decision being made on this application. Whilst I fully accept that each authority is responsible for determining the development within its own boundary, the Council would wish to draw members of the committees attention to the concerns which Aylesbury Vale District Council have which apply equally to that part of the development within Milton Keynes jurisdiction. The Environmental Statement: The Environmental Statement (ES) assesses the proposal on the basis of the impact of the proposal across the whole of the site. It fails to consider the different scenarios of a stand alone development within each authorities boundaries. This applies across all the assessments, however we would draw particular attention to that of the landscape and visual impact and also highway impact. This is fundamental to the consideration of the application as the mitigation measures needed to attempt to mitigate or minimise the effect to an acceptable level relies on mitigation outside of the Milton Keynes boundary (MKC) and has an affect on Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC). This has not been adequately addressed in the report. Landscape and visual impact: The ES masterplan and accompanying parameter plans show the district boundary runs across the middle of a residential land use block, with 2 and 3 storey development right up to the district boundary. The landscape strategy does not show any landscape mitigation or buffer along the district boundary. There is nothing in the report that addresses this properly. The land itself lies within a designated Area of Attractive Landscape (AAL) to which policy RA8 of the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan applies. This states: The Proposals Map defines Areas of Attractive Landscape, identified in the County Structure Plan, and Local Landscape Areas, defined by the District Council, which have particular landscape features and qualities that are considered appropriate for particular protection. Development proposals in these areas should respect their landscape character. Development that adversely affects this character will not be permitted, unless appropriate mitigation measures can be secured. Where permission is granted the Council will impose conditions or seek planning obligations to ensure the mitigation of any harm caused to the landscape interest. It is appreciated that this designation and policy does not apply to the northern part of the site within MKC, however there is no distinction in landscape character terms between the landscape within MKC and that in AVDC, it is all part of the same landscape character area. There are clear views across the land in each authority area to and from the AAL, and the value of the landscape should be regarded in the same way and is still a valued landscape in NPPF terms. Page 85 of the report sets out the comments of Milton Keynes own landscape officer who advises that (10) “consideration must be given to the inclusion of a substantial buffer landscaping along the joint boundary….. as the current layout relies heavily on permission being granted on the adjoining land in AVDC”. The report appears to down play these comments at paragraph 5.57 and refers to “a buffer between the two administrative areas if considered appropriate. A buffer in this location would help to reduce the impact of the development on the neighbouring landscape designation.” No buffer is indicated along this district boundary on the masterplan or parameter plans which form part of the ES, and the development as indicated could result in a harsh abrupt edge to the development. The provision of a landscape strip or hedgerow would be wholly inadequate to mitigate this effect, and any such mitigation would require a substantial buffer as advised by your own landscape officer. Even if such a buffer is provided this would be unlikely to overcome the significant adverse impact on the land within AVDC as a valued landscape. The ES and report to committee does not adequately deal with this as an issue and assess the harm from development taking place right up to the boundary with no mitigation. It therefore fails to provide any mitigation for this site to come forward independently of the land within AVDC. AVDC do not accept the findings of the LVIA contained within the ES on either landscape or visual impact. I consider that there would be a significant adverse effect on the land within AVDC which is designated an Area of Attractive Landscape and is a valued landscape in NPPF terms.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Improvements
    A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet improvements TR010044 Volume 6 6.1 Environmental Statement Chapter 13: Road Drainage and Water Environment Planning Act 2008 Regulation 5(2)(a) Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 26 February 2021 PCF XXX PRODUCT NAME | VERSION 1.0 | 25 SEPTEMBER 2013 | 5124654 A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet improvements Environmental Statement - Chapter 13: Road Drainage and the Water Environment Infrastructure Planning Planning Act 2008 The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet improvements Development Consent Order 202[ ] Chapter 13: Road Drainage and the Water Environment Regulation Reference: Regulation 5(2)(a) Planning Inspectorate Scheme TR010044 Reference Application Document Reference TR010044/APP/6.1 Author A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet improvements Project Team, Highways England Version Date Status of Version Rev 1 26 February 2021 DCO Application Planning Inspectorate Scheme Ref: TR010044 Application Document Ref: TR010044/APP/6.1 A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet improvements Environmental Statement - Chapter 13: Road Drainage and the Water Environment Table of contents Chapter Pages 13 Road drainage and the water environment 3 13.1 Competent expert evidence 3 13.2 Legislative and policy framework 3 13.3 Assessment methodology 8 13.4 Assessment assumptions and limitations 21 13.5 Study area 25 13.6 Baseline conditions 26 13.7 Potential impacts 53 13.8 Design, mitigation and enhancement measures 55 13.9 Assessment of significant effects 88 13.10 Monitoring 134 13.11 References 136 Table of Tables Table 13-1. Criteria to determine receptor importance......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ED222 Aylesbury Vale Local Plan
    Heritage Appraisal Aylesbury Vale District Council July 2019 Heritage Appraisal Quality information Prepared by Checked by Approved by Katerina Koukouthaki Gillian Scott Mark Fessey Built Heritage Consultant Principal Heritage Consultant Associate Director Orlando Prestidge Andy Mayes, Dr. Steven Smith Senior Archaeological Consultant Associate Director, Heritage Technical Director Revision history Revision Revision date Details Authorized Name Position Distribution list # Hard Copies PDF Required Association / Company Name AECOM Heritage Appraisal Prepared for: Aylesbury Vale District Council Prepared by: Katerina Koukouthaki Built Heritage Consultant E: [email protected] M: +44-(0)7825-709-036 Orlando Prestidge Senior Archaeological Consultant E: [email protected] M: +-44-(0)-778-559-2713 AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited The Colmore Building Colmore Circus Queensway Birmingham B4 6AT United Kingdom © 2019 AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited. All Rights Reserved. This document has been prepared by AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited (“AECOM”) for sole use of our client (the “Client”) in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM.
    [Show full text]
  • E-W Rail Position Paper
    RAIL FREIGHT GROUP (RFG) East-West Rail Position Paper 18 July 2017 RAIL FREIGHT GROUP (RFG) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The reopening of East West Rail link will play a vital role in supporting economic development of the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, including new housing and infrastructure. Rail freight has a significant role to play in supporting and servicing that development, in supply of construction materials and in facilitating efficient logistics for consumer goods. Estimates suggest that some 85,000+ homes are planned in the corridor over the next twenty years. As each freight train can move the equivalent of 30 houses worth of building materials, and keep up to 75 lorries off the roads, it is clear that encouraging rail freight must be a key imperative. To demonstrate the potential of the route, we have produced a position paper outlining where rail freight is already successfully operating, and where the reopened route offers opportunities for growth. Yet this cannot happen unless rail freight is planned from the outset, particularly given that new and different approaches to funding, construction and operation are being considered. We therefore urge Government to ensure that rail freight is a key part of the development of this route. EAST - WEST RAIL: FREIGHT POTENTIAL 1. Route and Infrastructure capability This study has assumed the route of East- West Rail (E-WR) phase one to be Oxford North Junc. – Bicester Gavray Junc. - Claydon LNE junc. – Bletchley Flyover Junc. – Bedford St. Johns – Bedford Midland. The route of Phase Two is, at present, unclear but will link the Phase One route at Bedford to Cambridge, with a link on to the ECML in the St.
    [Show full text]
  • Stakeholder Reference Group Presentation, July 2016
    :HOFRPHWRWKH 2[IRUGWR&DPEULGJH ([SUHVVZD\ 6WUDWHJLF6WXG\ 6WDNHKROGHU5HIHUHQFH*URXS -XO\ AGENDA Item Topic Lead Start Time 1 Networking Opportunity All 10:00 2 Welcome Philip 10:30 Introductions Agenda 3 Strategic Studies update Paul 10:35 4 A1 East of England Strategic Study – from Long List to short list Kieron 10:45 5 Breakout session to review/comment on short listed options All 11:15 6 Feedback and Comments All 12:00 7 Next steps Paul 12:15 8 Lunch / Networking Opportunity All 12:30 9 Welcome to those joining the afternoon session Alan 13:00 Introductions Agenda 10 Update on RIS1 A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet and other schemes within the Dave/ 13:05 study vicinity Alan 11 Strategic Studies update Paul 13:35 12 Oxford to Cambridge Expressway Strategic Study – from long list to short list Adrian 13:45 13 Breakout session to review/comment on short listed options All 14:15 14 Feedback and Comments All 15:00 15 Next Steps Paul 15:15 16 Event closure Paul 15:30 A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet improvement scheme A1 East of England and Oxford to Cambridge Expressway Study Stakeholder Reference Group 7th July 2016 Introductions / Agenda . Andrew Kelly, Highways England, A428 Project Manager . Ian Cook, Jacobs, A428 Project Manager . A428-Strategic Studies Timing & Interfaces . Background, Context & Challenges . Progress to date . Next Steps . Questions Timing & Interfaces Road Road Road Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 OPTIONS / DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION A428 DCO A1 SS CONSTRUCTION OX-CAM SS CONSTRUCTION
    [Show full text]
  • LCA 4.6 A421 Ridge Landscape Character Type: LCT4 Undulating
    Aylesbury Vale District Council & Buckinghamshire County Council Aylesbury Vale Landscape Character Assessment LCA 4.6 A421 Ridge Landscape Character Type: LCT4 Undulating Clay Plateau B0404200/LAND/01 Aylesbury Vale District Council & Buckinghamshire County Council Aylesbury Vale Landscape Character Assessment LCA 4.6 A421 Ridge (LCT 4) Key Characteristics Location A sparsely settled area stretching between Padbury in the southwest to Nash in the northeast, contained by the settlements of Ridge runs east to Thornborough to the northwest and Great Horwood and Singleborough to west the southeast. The A421 Buckingham to Milton Keynes road runs across the Land drains towards middle of the area. Padbury Brook Sparse settlement Landscape character A shallow ridge with steeper slopes on the northern Small dispersed side and shallower slopes and eroded valleys on the southern side, lying copses between two tributaries to the Padbury Brook. The area is intrinsically rural Mixed farmland use and sparsely settled. Smaller scale grazing parcels to the north with mature Predominantly hedgerows and scattered mature trees. Small woodland copses are parliamentary frequent. General intensification of arable land use in the southwest. The enclosure fields settlement of Nash lies at north eastern end of area. The area is crossed by the A421 road which is heavily used and there is small scale commercial development adjacent to A421. Distinctive Features Geology Glacial till with undifferentiated glacial deposits. Exposures of Village of Nash mudstone (Stewartby Member and Peterborough Member) as well as head deposits in incised valleys. Dispersed farmsteads Irregular shaped fields Topography The ridge slopes gently from 140m AOD in the east to Straight roads approximately 105m AOD in the west.
    [Show full text]
  • Oxford to Cambridge Expressway Strategic Study: Interim Report
    OXFORD TO CAMBRIDGE EXPRESSWAY STRATEGIC STUDY Deliverable 1 – Examination of the Strategic Case for New Expressway East-West Road Links 08/07/2016 Confidentiality: Quality Management Issue/revision Issue 1 Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3 Remarks First Issue Second Issue Third Issue Fourth Issue Date February 2016 April 2016 April 2016 July 2016 Prepared by Andi Redhead Andi Redhead Andi Redhead Andi Redhead Edward Shortridge Edward Shortridge Edward Shortridge Edward Shane Luck Shane Luck Shane Luck Shortridge Shane Luck Signature Checked by Adrian Hames Adrian Hames Adrian Hames Adrian Hames Signature Authorised by Mike Batheram Mike Batheram Mike Batheram Mike Batheram Signature Project number 70015095 70015095 70015095 70015095 Report number 1 1 1 1 Revision 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1 | 144 OXFORD TO CAMBRIDGE EXPRESSWAY STRATEGIC STUDY Deliverable 1 – Examination of the Strategic Case for New Expressway East-West Road Links 08/07/2016 Client Highways England / Department for Transport Lead Consultant WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Limited Tel: 01223 558 050 www.wsp-pb.co.uk Registered Address WSP UK Limited 01383511 WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF Integrated Delivery Team Contacts Adrian Hames – [email protected] 07825643848 Helen Spackman – [email protected] 01793 816555 Mike Batheram – [email protected] Project number: 70015095 Dated: 08/07/2016 2 | 144 Table of Contents 1 Introduction and Study Objectives ......................................... 4 1.1 Introduction ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • River Basin Management Plan Anglian River Basin District
    River Basin Management Plan Anglian River Basin District Annex D: Protected area objectives Contents D.1 Introduction 2 D.2 Types and location of protected areas 3 D.3 Monitoring network 12 D.4 Objectives 19 D.5 Compliance (results of monitoring) including 22 actions (measures) for Surface Water Drinking Water Protected Areas and Natura 2000 Protected Areas D.6 Other information 118 D.1 Introduction The Water Framework Directive specifies that areas requiring special protection under other EC Directives and waters used for the abstraction of drinking water are identified as protected areas. These areas have their own objectives and standards. Article 4 of the Water Framework Directive requires Member States to achieve compliance with the standards and objectives set for each protected area by 22 December 2015, unless otherwise specified in the Community legislation under which the protected area was established. Some areas may require special protection under more than one EC Directive or may have additional (surface water and/or groundwater) objectives. In these cases, all the objectives and standards must be met. Article 6 requires Member States to establish a register of protected areas. The types of protected areas that must be included in the register are: • areas designated for the abstraction of water for human consumption (Drinking Water Protected Areas); • areas designated for the protection of economically significant aquatic species (Freshwater Fish and Shellfish); • bodies of water designated as recreational waters, including areas designated as Bathing Waters; • nutrient-sensitive areas, including areas identified as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones under the Nitrates Directive or areas designated as sensitive under Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD); • areas designated for the protection of habitats or species where the maintenance or improvement of the status of water is an important factor in their protection including 1 relevant Natura 2000 sites.
    [Show full text]
  • VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents
    VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-07-12-00204 Kate Wright Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment - The Draft Plan states that 'The site has only recently, in 2016, been granted temporary permission for 3 pitches. The inspector concluded that the development would have a significant adverse visual appearance and materially harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The site is not readily accessible to local amenities given its rural location.' It has been concluded that this will not be one of the sites which is considered for permanent occupation. This statement should be redrafted to include the following: This temporary site is planned for closure at the end of the existing term ie 09 Feb 2019, or earlier, when the new VALP is in place. VALP16-07-18-00209 Lynne Garton Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The sites identified are not in line with the Neighbourhood Plan and as such are not supported by the local community VALP16-07-22-00213 Geoff Pearman Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment - I wish to be assured that the Gypsy Travellers site ( ref GT8 ) will continue to be designated as temporary and as such will be forced close after three years i.e. by early 2019. It is a far from ideal site and totally unsustainable for human habitation. Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 1 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-07-22-00216 Joanna Male (Gregory Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Gregory Gray Associates is instructed to write on behalf of Wyevale Gray Associates) Garden Centres Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • A421 Dualling Upgrade Into Milton Keynes Complete
    A421 dualling upgrade into Milton Keynes complete In partnership with Milton Keynes Council and the South East Midlands Local Enterprise Partnership (SEMLEP) we pleased to announce that works are complete on our project to upgrade a key section of the A421 road into a dual carriageway, which means that drivers can now enjoy a faster and easier route around Central Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes. The 3km of the road has been upgraded to better link Junction 13 of the M1 motorway in Central Bedfordshire with Milton Keynes. The stretch runs from the roundabouts by the junction up to the new Eagles Rest housing development and the Altitude Magna Park logistics and distribution site in Milton Keynes. The A421 forms a key section of the strategic east-west travel corridor and helps underpin the future of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc. Enhancing east-west connectivity is a key component of the enabling infrastructure which will help to create opportunities for the wider area to become the UK’s innovation region, delivering growth in science and technology. As well as easing congestion, the upgraded A421 will help improve access to planned developments in Central Bedfordshire, such as the 5,000 homes proposed in new villages in the Marston Vale area (in our Local Plan), as well as 40 hectares of employment land. Previously there were no safe routes for pedestrians beside the A421, so we built a new cycleway which stretches along the length of the newly dualled A421 and a footbridge over it. The new cycleway is part of a future larger cycle network.
    [Show full text]
  • Balfour Beatty Plc Annual Report and Accounts 2005 B a L F O U R
    EATE ALFOUR BEATTY: B CR CARE Balfour Beatty plc Balfour Beatty plc Annual report and accounts 2005 Annual report and accounts 2005 Balfour Beatty plc Annual report and accounts 2005 130 Wilton Road 130 London SW1V 1LQ Balfour Beatty plc www.balfourbeatty.com Facsimile: 44 (0) 20 7216 6950 Facsimile: 44 (0) 20 7216 Telephone: 44 (0) 20 7216 6800 44 (0) 20 7216 Telephone: Balfour Beatty is a registered trademark of Balfour Beatty plc The year in brief Highlights of the year Strong growth in comparable Balfour Beatty is a world-class pre-tax profits engineering, construction and services Strong operating cash group, well positioned in infrastructure performance Adjusted earnings per share markets which offer significant growth impacted by increased long-term growth potential. We seek tax charge Full year dividend increased to operate safely and sustainably. by 23% Order book at record £7.6bn Financial summary Pro forma† Percentage 2005 2004 Increase/decrease 2004 Three PPP concessions reach Revenue including joint ventures financial close and associates £4,938m £4,239m 16% £4,239m US civil engineering returns Pre-tax profit from continuing operations to profit – before exceptional items £134m £107m 25% £122m – after exceptional items £141m £106m 33% £120m Earnings per share – adjusted* 24.1p 22.1p 9% 22.5p – basic 24.9p 58.7p (58)% 57.4p Financing – net cash before PFI/PPP subsidiaries (non-recourse) £315m £311m £311m – net borrowings of PFI/PPP subsidiaries (non-recourse) £(14)m £(244)m £(244)m Revenue by destination * before exceptional US UK Asia Pacific items and the premium arising on the buy-back £480m £3,728m £258m of preference shares, and including the results Central and Europe of discontinued operations.
    [Show full text]
  • 6.6: Travel Plan 1 Covanta Rookery South Limited Waterman Boreham
    The Planning Act 2008 The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 Regulation 5(2)(q) The Proposed Rookery South (Resource Recovery Facility) Order Travel Plan 4 August 2010 Document Reference: 6.6 Contents 1.0 Executive Summary 1 2.0 Introduction 3 2.1 Background....................................................................................... 3 2.2 National and Local Policy.................................................................. 3 2.3 Guidance on Transport Assessment (DfT, 2007).............................. 3 2.4 Benefits of a Travel Plan ................................................................... 4 2.5 Aims and Approach........................................................................... 5 3.0 Existing and Proposed Conditions 7 3.2 Site Description................................................................................. 7 3.3 Existing Strategic and Local Highway Network ................................. 7 3.4 Accessibility ...................................................................................... 9 3.5 Public Transport.............................................................................. 11 4.0 Objectives and Targets 17 4.1 The Focus of the Travel Plan .......................................................... 17 4.2 Objectives ....................................................................................... 17 4.3 Targets............................................................................................ 17 5.0 Travel
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 9 Ecology
    TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992 Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 THE NETWORK RAIL (EAST WEST RAIL WESTERN SECTION PHASE 2) ORDER DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT CHAPTER 9: ECOLOGY 133735-PBR-REP-EEN- Document Reference 000009 Author Network Rail Date June 2017 Date of revision and revision June 2017 number 2.0 The Network Rail (East West Rail Western Section Phase 2) Order Draft Environmental Statement CONTENTS 9. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 9.1 General .......................................................................................................... 2 9.2 Limitations and Assumptions ......................................................................... 3 9.3 Legislation, Policy and Guidance ................................................................... 3 9.4 Approach and Methodology ........................................................................... 6 9.5 Baseline ....................................................................................................... 23 9.6 Effects ....................................................................................................... 197 9.7 Mitigation ................................................................................................... 325 9.8 Residual Effects ......................................................................................... 376 9.9 Species Scientific Name Glossary ............................................................
    [Show full text]