VIEWS: 4 PAGES: 30 POSTED ON: 12/3/2011
Received From Comment Officer Response Change to Draft Brief 1. Robin Gillis Section 4.7.10 refers to taxis using Bishop‟s Bridge and Council preference remains for Integration & Westway for journeys to City and West End. It is still the departing taxis to be diverted Interchange Manager aspiration of TfL PCO to have a left turn from taxi deck to towards the strategic road Public Carriage Office bridge to facilitate journeys to the south/west, particularly network. Taxis would be able to for Chelsea/Kensington/Knightsbridge trips „u-turn‟ around the gyratory if they 27 May 2008 wish to go westwards. See Parliamentary Undertaking #340 2. Debbie Parker a) 4.7.16 (final bullet) Suggest rewording to reflect a) agree a) „temporary‟ Assistant aspiration for taxis to be permanently relocated to Lynx replaced with Complimentary Deck „relocated‟ Measures Manager b) 4.7.18 (final sentence) suggested additional wording: b) Not agreed, in light of Mayor‟s TfL C-Charge & “…require further consideration, particularly as this forms decision Enforcement the charge-free route to the A40” c) Given zone to be scrapped, c) now refers to c) 5.2 (10th bullet) Update to reflect the western CCZ was wording changed differently removal of zone 28 May 2008 implemented in February 2007 d) Not agreed given changes to d) 5.25 removed d) 5.25 Suggested rewording: “…although Harrow Road is CCZ given CCZ changes the principal, charge-free diversionary route.” e) Taxis are explicitly mentioned proposed e) It would be interesting to see more explicit references to throughout in relation to specific the importance of managing taxi operation in PSPA locations 3. Adrian Cole a) The team is keen to respond to the challenges of a) The forthcoming Public Realm Development Control additional bus passenger demand in Paddington. Study, as advocated in the brief, Specialist Following the planned development the team expect to and now close to a first draft, will TfL Bus Priority Team see i) measures to reduce bus journey times; ii) seek to ensure an exemplary accessibility enhancements to all bus stops within the public realm accommodating all 4 17 June 2008 PSPA to make them DDA compliant; iii) improvements to points. walking routes and crossings to assist access to stops; iv) the best possible interchange arrangements between modes. b) During construction of each development the team b) The public realm study will expect disruption to bus operations and passenger consider the impacts of proposals access/interchange to be minimized. on the public realm. c) The project of greatest interest to the team is Crossrail, and 3 key factors require detailed consideration: i) c) Noted. The public realm study c) Recognition of Maintenance of bus operations on Praed Street – so we will have potential to consider the benefits of support the bored technique to ensure presence at all improving the siting of bus stops lowering ET times; ii) bus standing in Eastbourne Terrace to be to ensure maximum accessibility recognized in para relocated to a nearby location acceptable to TfL and WCC; between bus and Crossrail 4.5.5 iii) we‟d like to see bus/Crossrail interchange to be as easy as possible and therefore support lowering Eastbourne Terrace. The team would like to be involved in the development and assessment of options, which should include direct access to the new station without the need to cross intervening roads. 4. John Walton a) Changes are required to reflect recent developments a) Agreed a) Changes made Paddington Residents‟ including i) Mayoral change; ii) Crossrail‟s undertakings throughout Active Concern on and assurances; iii) Crossrail and Hammerson Agreement; Transport (PRACT) iv) House of Lords Select Committee report and its enactment; v) development of H&C station future 9 July 2008 improvements. b) In order to avoid repetition, b) Appendix 11 b) It would be useful if Section 4 was updated with cross schedule of undertakings and added references to the relevant undertaking or assurance in assurances included at Appendix Appendix 8. 11 c) Do LUL have proposals for the Bakerloo Line station? c) There is potential for the Post We hope so but have heard nothing Office site to provide basement d) 1.5 Suggest “Post Office/Sorting Office site” space to allow for a new ticket e) 2.12 needs updating as work now underway hall, as per section 4.4 d) “Post Office Site” neatly covers the site‟s previous function and other sections define it exactly e) agreed e) 2.12 changed f) 2.17 insert “but unfortunately its efficacy as a link will be f) agreed f) amended severely limited until the separating wall is pierced” g) The general statements on g) Section 3 needs to be updated to reflect the new London Plan policy translate Mayor‟s views directly across to the new Mayor h) 4.1.2 should be updated to mention that Phase 2 of the h) Agreed h) updated masterplan is not being proceeded with i) Agreed i) suggested i) 4.1.8 could be misinterpreted. Suggest alternative j) Agreed revised wording wording included j) 4.1.10 needs updating to ensure practical adherence to j) updated the intention for uninterrupted access. k) Agreed k) included k) Request a new para 4.1.10 to explain that passive provision be made for the taxis to relocate back to Departures Road following construction, in line with Undertaking 340. l) Suggest new para to summarise the agreement between l) Agreed l) See new 10.4.5 Crossrail and Hammerson. m) 4.3.3 add sentence about entrance to Bakerloo m) Agreed m) sentence preferable in PO site, rather than Mint Wing included n) 4.4.4 revised sentence structure suggested n) Agreed n) included o) 4.7.5 refer to undertakings and assurances in app.11 o) Agreed p&q) paras now p) 4.7.8 Light spine now unlikely p) Agreed better reflect the q) 4.7.9 Lowering Eastbourne Terrace may not proceed q) Agreed situation r) 4.7.10 Substitute „Harrow Road‟ for „the Westway‟. We r) Noted. r) changed don‟t necessarily support a forced east turn from the taxi deck. For later consideration. s) 4.7.14 Delete last bullet referring to light spine, and add s) Agreed s) 4.6.14 amended a bullet on reinstatement of narrowed ET and Dep Rd. t) 4.7.25 Add sentence re: minimising disruption t) Agreed t) added u) 4.7.28 should mention the light spine forcing a move of u) Disagree 4.7.28 refers to the the separation between ET and DR services being moved v) 4.8.3 add “during construction” v) Agreed v) added to 4.7.3 w) 4.10.4 the gyratory should only be altered if it improves w) Agreed w) 4.10.4 redrafted the traffic flows. The taxi queuing problem needs to be to reflect latest explicitly addressed in the brief, and resolved situation x) 4.10.7 Needs redrafting x) Agreed x) amalgamated into 4.10.5 and y) 5.6 (2nd bullet) should make clear that taxis can only 4.1.13 return to Departures Road if traffic operation ok y) Agree y) amended A) 5.8 needs to refer to an updated future demand A) Agreed A) 5.9 updated prediction, and consider whether to extend the current ranking capacity B) 5.13 Cross refer to the Dep Rd being treated as part of B) Agreed B) 5.13 updated the work site to give WCC status as the Highway Authority in plans to reconfigure DR following construction. DR could accommodate some of the lost uses on ET, and the brief should recognise the consequences of narrowing ET C) 5.18 We stress the importance of an early decision on C) Agreed C) Section aims for precisely how good pedestrian access between the station that and hospital is to be achieved D) 5.27 Need mention of the latest on TfL‟s extended CCZ D) Agreed D) 5.28 updated review 5. Cynthia Poole a) we support PRACTs comments a) Noted St Marylebone Society b) 2.4 4th bullet add “(without transepts)” after “1916” b) Not agreed Subcommittee c) 2.12 20 ET already partially refurbished c) Agreed c) changed 9 July 2008 d) 2.18 add „Dorset Square” to the list? In appendix Views d) Agreed d) added 13 and 14 are in SMS area, but not Dorset Square CA e) 4.1.4 7th bullet would prefer a firm commitment to e) noted building the escalator f) 4.1.11 suggest deletion of “concourse” in the last line f) Agreed f) deleted to widen scope for alterations g) 4.5.4 amend as refurb is partly completed or in g) Agreed g) Changed progress h) 4.7.5 amend – HoL proceedings complete h) Agreed h) Amended i) 4.7.8 I thought „light spine‟ was to be deleted? i) Potentially, but still an option j) 4.7.21 suggest changes to reflect end of parliamentary j) Agreed j) Amended procedures, and officer‟s ongoing discussions with Crossrail k) 4.7.22 Have locations of bus stands been resolved? If k) They haven‟t yet so brief need to be amended l) Noted, unfortunately this has l) 4.7.24 Strongly support WCC‟s latest amendment had to be retracted, and H&C m) 4.10.6 Ditto access physically impossible n) 5.4 It is not line capacity, but passenger access to the m) Noted platform which is difficult n) It is both o) 5.11 Strongly support WCC‟s latest additions o) Noted p) 5.13 ditto p) Noted q) Section 6 Agree with WCC approach to design of q) Noted Crossrail station r) As stated, residents, workers r) Section 7 Who? and visitors s) sentence s) 9.7 delete “to” on 3rd line s) Noted amended t) p42 of appendix – the so called experts who make up t) Noted the listings will not concede that Span 4 lacks the transepts incorporated by Brunel for cross track transfers! I have not read the appendix in detail, as I expect it will already be set in tablets of stone u) Would ET be closed during construction? How might u) WCC await CRL clarity. See this affect buses and taxis? 4.6.25 v) A scheme with a canalside aspect would greatly enrich v) This has been considered, but the local urban configuration. Is it feasible given the tranquil canal and busy taxi deck extraordinary knot of traffic movements? This is a one- might not be ideally combined time opportunity that would be a pity to pass over without careful scrutiny w) The text isn‟t clear whether the Brunel bridge will be re- w) pedestrian only bridge, final used for pedestrians, or what exactly it would be location to be determined linking x) Should the brief incorporate the 2 Edgware Rd x) PATS does this, and the underground stations and the large grim underpass Merchant Square S106, but that links them? beyond scope of station brief 6. Paddington a) Our chairman did a census of taxis at 4pm on 2 July. a) Noted. Waterways & Maida The taxi layout already blocks the traffic flow and Vale Society impedes buses trying to stop at Harrow Rd and June 2008 Bishop‟s bridge, with bendy buses adding to the problem at the gyratory b) There is space for 53 taxis from the gyratory to the b) Noted hotel, so theoretically another 42 could have been there, making 134 in total c) We would be unhappy in insisting taxis turn right after c) Noted. coming out onto the bridge, feeling that the many who will want to turn west must be accommodated d) We would like reassurance that there will be allowance d) Private vehicles likely to be d) 4.6.24 & 5.2 for private car and minicab pickup/set down within the retained on Departures Road – amended station purlieu still awaiting CRL confirmation e) There should be proper accommodation for disabled e) Agreed, officers continue to access within the purlieu work with NR to ensure the best f) We trust that the wall (mentioned in 4.7.27 as being practical environment grade I listed, and demolished in 4.7.13) will be f) Any material alteration to the reinstated somewhere in the scheme wall will be assessed under g) Please ensure any plans for the development of the Heritage Deeds and Schedule 7 Triangle site is given a great deal of attention in the g) That attention has begun pre-planning stages h) We fully endorse PRACT‟s response and are very h) Noted grateful for their input 7. Robert Paris a) The brief provides useful information and guidance on a) Noted Head of Planning & WCC‟s aspirations for the development of the station Environment and its environs, and will assist CLRL as it takes CLRL forward the detailed design of the Crossrail station and 11 July 2008 associated works b) During the parliamentary process, the following b) Agreed assurance was given [paraphrased]: The nominated undertaker will have regard to the provision of the Planning Briefs, where they are relevant, when preparing technical submissions under the Bill (including applications and submissions under the heritage deeds and Schedule 7 to the Bill) save that – - in relation to submissions under schedule 7, this only applies so far as those provisions are relevant to the permitted grounds of refusal - the council has properly had regard to any observations or concerns expressed to it as relevant to Crossrail - the provisions do not apply to applications under conditions imposed by a direction under para 2 sched 16 with respect to the batching plant at New Yard This assurance demonstrates the CLRL wishes to work with the council, so CLRL look forward to the next revision of the brief taking full account of the comments in this response. c) I am disappointed to observe that the council chose to c) These comments were not disregard CLRL‟s earlier comments (March 2007), and received in 2007. I reiterate them now [see attached table, updated since March 2007 and associated officer responses] d) CLRL considers that the text should be updated to d) Brief printed for committee was reflect the Parliamentary process has been concluded, prior to Undertaking and with a substantial number of undertakings given to Assurances being finalized. WCC U&A‟s now included at appendix 11 8. Mike Noakes, a) The brief provides a comprehensive itemization of a) Noted General Manager BAA, requirements relating to development and access & Brian Raven, arrangement changes in the foreseeable future Managing Director b) We recognise the significant role undertaken by the b) Welcomed HEX council‟s planning department in coordinating Heathrow Express stakeholder liaison through the mechanisms of the 8 July 2008 PSPA group and PSRG, and the Paddington Steering Group which brings stakeholders together c) We suggest there is the need to enhance the scope of c) Agreed c) 4.1.17 added the planning brief to address the area of enhancing the Paddington Station passenger experience. We have in mind a number of directions: - integrated transport innovation and improved customer access to travel information/options/contingency travel advice etc - Continuing improvement of advanced ticketing, travel planning and security measures - Addressing the carbon footprint of not just rail vehicles but also onward travel modes d) 4.10.4 The outstanding LTVA Parliamentary d) Noted d) PIP discussed in undertaking obligation that BAA and Network Rail have is detail at 4.1.13 not given the level of priority that would align with our Collaboration Agreement signed in March 2003. Progress to define a modified station access has been confused and delayed by the reactivation of Crossrail and by the Western Extension of the CCZ. We have proposed an alternative solution. The Westbourne Terrace/Sussex Gardens Priority Change scheme on 22 June 2007, for which there is merit in progressing in advance of Crossrail construction. The study commissioned by Crossrail has recommended no boundary change. We therefore wish the brief to specifically reference the remaining LTVA access obligation and current scheme proposed by BAA/NR together with the limited time for delivery (30 months following the new bridge opening). 9. Alex Andrews a) TfL offers its support for the content of this document a) Welcomed Principal Planner relating to transport, which is in general accordance TfL with strategic policy guidance within the London Plan. 7 July 2008 Achieving key land use objectives in this area is critical to delivering a world class transport system for London The study area is of importance to TfL as it represents a major multi-modal interchange location with many inter-related and crosscutting transport routes. The brief will assist with implementation of the Crossrail project b) TfL is concerned that the fact that the future b) Noted b) 4.7.41 added development of the station and surrounds will be legally bound by the Crossrail Bill is not given sufficient weight in the brief. Need to ensure it does not conflict with Schedule 7 c) TfL will require a full TA for each of the specific c) Noted c) 5.1 explains the development sites if they meet the criteria for referable Highway Authority planning applications. They should be in accordance expect the same with TfL‟s TA best practice guidance (May 2006), and UTC‟s Modelling guidelines over a suitably wide area. Demand modeling assumptions and results will need to understand both existing and future modifications to Paddington Station supported by pedestrian modeling work d) TfL will need to be notified of all proposals that affect d) Code of Construction Practice d) 7.5 amended the SRN or TLRN, as outlined in the TMA (2004). will require this Traffic management plans should be prepared for the construction stages to minimize impact on operation of all road networks, and it would be desirable to have a statement on waste management that encourages recycling of materials in order to reduce overall traffic e) Travel plans should also be submitted for all other e) Travel plans required to be major developments within PSPA. The brief should submitted for large provide a framework for travel demand measures redevelopments across the study area which includes preparation of site specific travel plans f) 3.3 Opportunity Area status should be 2026, not 2016 f) 3.4 states 2026 g) References to the western CCZ extension (now g) Agreed g) 5.20 updated operational) on page 29 and 32 should be amended h) Retaining the operation of ET and its associated bus h) Agreed – public realm standing facility is an important objective. strategy will address i) Points at 3 a) (i-iv) above repeated i) Agreed j) 4.7.20 It is important to retain a bus presence on Praed j) Noted – public realm strategy St at all times, and also ideally on ET. will address k) 5.6 TfL is concerned at proposals that would require k) Noted temp closure of the street, and therefore support WCC in encouraging the new tunnel link between the Crossrail station and the D&C line l) TfL will be seeking a bus/Crossrail interchange that is l) Both options have their as easy as possible, and lowering ET may be the disbenefits. TfL are involved optimal solution. TfL would like to be involved in the via the PSRG in the decision development of options making m) WCC as highway authority should ensure temporary m) Agreed m) 5.1 made more traffic arrangements minimize adverse impacts to bus explicit operations n) 4.7.21TfL‟s view is the brief should emphasise the n) 4.1.12 does this severe capacity issues that will be faced by LU without significant enhancement of the H&C line station, and ask that the references be enhanced to reflect the importance of the H&C congestion relief scheme, which includes decluttering the island platform and incorporating a new ticket hall o) 5.11 LU demand forecasts indicate that Crossrail o) Noted would relieve demand pressure on the H&C by c.25% p) LU‟s programme includes provision of step free access p) Noted from street to D&C, and Bakerloo platforms by 2013 q) TfL requests more detail on walking and cycling routes q) The public realm study will across the study area, addressing both the present illuminate the issues, and situation as well as planned developments. Greater Legible London system is consideration should be given to walking and cycling in being actively considered the area (not just the station). A wider walking and cycling strategy should be considered within the brief, as there is a significant amount of severance of routes in the area, which the brief should aim to resolve. Cycle parking facilities should be provided in and around the study area, and contingency plans should be drawn up to provide safe, secure and convenient alternative routes during any planned or unplanned emergency situation. In terms of way finding, it would be appropriate to develop a system based on the principles of the TfL Legible London scheme r) 9.4 TfL supports the proposal for a joint public realm r) Welcomed study, which should be intrinsically linked to the brief s) 4.7.10 TfL requests that the brief specifies preferred s) The gyratory provides an ideal routes for taxis heading west as well as east. TfL „u-turn‟ location believes the left turn from the deck needs to be preserved, or (in its absence) an accepted u-turn at a suitable location on Bishop‟s Bridge itself t) 4.7.16 suggest rewording to state clearly that taxis are t) It is not inconceivable that the to be permanently relocated to the Lynx Deck taxis return to Departures u) 4.7.18 suggest addition of “particularly as this forms Road the charge free route to the A40” u) Inappropriate now extension v) Updated to v) 5.2 needs updating to reflect implementation of CCZ to be scrapped reflect removal of w) 5.25 Suggest rewording as “although Harrow Road is v) Noted CCZ the principal, charge free diversionary route w) Noted w) 5.26 updated x) TfL stress the plans to lower ET are key to the long x) Noted x) added at 4.7.25 term sustainability of interchange between buses and the station, particularly as regards the permeability of the south west side of the station. Enhanced facilities for interchanging passengers will need to comply with the “Intermodal Transport Interchange for London Best Practice Guidelines” (Jan 2001) y) TfL strongly supports moves to significantly reduce car y) Noted. UDP maximums will parking ratios of the associated office and retail apply developments, and would like to see the area be as car free as possible 10. Ian Runeckles a) 1.6 BW welcome the brief‟s objective to improve the a) Noted Planning Manager canal environment British Waterways b) We are pleased to see our previous reps have been b) Noted 21 July 2008 taken into account c) The key issues for BW are: c) All covered by the brief - High quality exit from station to towpath - Relationship of taxi ramp off BBR - Redevelopment of Triangle site and re-erection and re-use of “Canopy Building” d) It is critical the brief identifies the requirement for a d) Agreed d) 4.1.13 added high quality solution to the rear exit from station to towpath. Welcome opportunity for step-free access from towpath to underground ticket office, better links to platforms and improved access to Goods Yard and Basin. It is important that the exit is safe, legible and attractive, and carefully thought through in the context of the taxi ramp, Triangle site and café/canopy building e) BW objected to the taxi ramp on the grounds of e) Noted detrimental impact (overbearing/enclosing) the ramp would have on the canal environment. We remain concerned of the potential „canyoning effect‟ for pedestrians, and the capacity of the ramp and deck, the visual impact, as well as the noise, disturbance and light pollution from the taxis themselves and any associated lighting, potentially ecologically detrimental. The “recommended ramp” as proposed in the planning app is set further back behind a building, and we therefore consider it to have less impact on the canal. We would be happy to join the discussion with all key stakeholders, and it is critical that the relationship between Triangle, towpath and café/canopy are carefully considered f) The successful regeneration of the Basin and Padd f) Noted. Development control Central has resulted in significant increases in peds matter, to be considered in detail and cycle users of the towpath. The abandonment of when submitted. the Span 4 scheme also reduces potential commodious circulation space. The location of the canopy building in the position indicated in application ref 07/09445/FULL would reduce the effective width of the towpath, and we are concerned that the result would be ineffective capacity for projected volumes of pedestrians, cyclists and other towpath users. The proposed steps linking towpath with station also appear to be too narrow to cope with existing and projected footfall. This, and that we believe the location for the canopy would be inappropriate in the setting of the 55-65 NWR resolved decision, mean that we have therefore changed our view since we didn‟t object to the previous canopy building g) We continue to support the re-erection of the listed g) This option is being considered canopy building adjacent to the canal, however in light of above we now feel it would be more appropriate to create a „heritage cluster‟ in Stone Wharf Gardens area including the re-erected Brunel bridge, existing rotunda building and canopy to complement the Little Venice and Maida Vale CA and 200 year old canal. This would be better than a busy commuter area h) 2.9-10 We support the council‟s desire to see the h) Agreed except for cyclists, who h) 2.11 amended former Doulton Warehouses retained and sensitively should not use the towpath integrated within any future development. Please add cyclists, boaters and other canal users to the last sentence of para 2.10 i) 2.17 You may wish to add that the canal connects the i) 2.13 amended borough to the rest of our 2,200 mile network of inland i) Agreed waterways. The towpath is also an important pedestrian route for tourists, leisure and other users and acts as an „open air gym‟ j) 2.17 The canal is beginning to witness a modest revival in the transportation of freight by water. A j) Noted, but no locations for feasibility study demonstrates it can be economically loading/unloading identified in viable to move aggregates, waste, recyclates and CoW other low value, high volume, non-time sensitive goods by water k) Section 3 Please add reference to the relevant Blue k) added Ribbon Network policies in the consolidated London k) Agreed Plan (2008) l) 4.2 See comments on Triangle site above l) Noted l) 4.1.13 added m) 4.7.17 Please add requirement for Crossrail proposal m) This has been considered but to investigate feasibility of removing spoil and does not form part of CLRL‟s delivering materials etc by barge in accordance with construction proposals or policies 3C.25 and 4C.8 of the London Plan. A permitted works under the Act, so conveyor could transfer the spoil from work site to can‟t be insisted upon any longer canal for treatment at Powerday‟s Materials Recycling by WCC facility at Old Oak Sidings, or transfer to landfill from Powerday‟s railhead. Initial estimates suggest up to 2,500 tonnes per day, reducing lorry journeys and CO2 emissions, accidents etc. n) 5.2 This para broadly aligns with our comments n) Agreed n) 5.2 amended above. Please amend though to demonstrate the potential during the construction cycle and remove waste and recyclates following occupation o) 5.20 See comments above regarding exit from the o) Noted station p) 5.24-27 We would welcome the council‟s support in p) C-charge extension to be discussions with TfL to securing the local boundary scrapped near to Royal Oak underground station. Cameras capture motorists seeking to leave Maida Vale and Paddington. Camera and boundary should be moved to south of the junction of Porchester Road and Gloucester Terrace q) 7.11-14 The brief should also explore opportunities to q) 7.15 added use the canal for sustainable transport (freight and q) Agreed passengers), for receiving SUDS discharges, and for heating/cooling buildings r) 9.2 Should identify water buses and taxis to r) 9.2 amended complement the other improvements for travellers to r) Agreed and from the station. 11. Daniel Ahern a) London Street is a quiet area mainly used by a) Agreed. It is hope that the John Aird Court pedestrians from Sheldon Square and Little Venice to towpath surface can be improved resident avoid the diesel fumes of Paddington Station. It also for pedestrians 9 July 2008 gives access to St Mary‟s hospital. The canal path alongside is cobbled (not easy for walking) and blocked at one end by two small hospital buildings b) The introduction of hundreds of taxis in two lanes will b) Noted. The wall will remain, bring extensive pollution and noise to the area. and some of the deck is proposed Furthermore the vehicles would have to pass over to be roofed pedestrians over the station. It would be better if the taxis were put elsewhere although I admit this is quite a problem. If the taxis were brought onto the London St deck, they should be enclosed (preferred) or separated by a wall from pedestrians c) The station environs south east of Bishop‟s Bridge c) Agreed, the brief will assist in have always been relatively quiet, and this suits the ensuring this character will be environs of St Mary‟s Hospital preserved d) Traffic is set to increase and is increasing because of d) Noted. Crossrail may well various construction plans in Paddington. This assist in reducing traffic in the flagrantly disregards the ecological and human area. There is likely to be a rise requirements of the area. It would be fascinating to in cycling to/from the station in see a plan for the dramatic reduction of traffic line with trends though 12. DP9 a) From 1 October 07 St Mary‟s NHS Trust and a)Noted Planning consultants Hammersmith NHS Trust merged to become part of on behalf of Imperial Imperial College NHS Trust. Working in partnership College Healthcare with Imperial College the new organization is UK‟s first NHS Trust Academic Health Science Centre, offering patients 11 July 2008 faster access to cutting edge research and techniques b) 2.10 The Trust has no plans to redevelop or demolish b) Welcomed the bays. Should they be required as a result of an alternative to Span 4 or other plan, the form and usability will have to be thoroughly assessed c) 4.1.9 The vertical circulation core should be made c) Disagree. Need to avoid taxi accessible to pedestrians from St Mary‟s via South problems in SWR. Access via Wharf Road so that patients, visitors and staff can towpath/Arrivals road possible benefit from improved access to the mainline station d) 4.3.2 Needs to be updated to explain that the Trust is d) Agreed d) updated developing a masterplan in cooperation with RMG to redevelop in phases e) 4.4.3 The trust acknowledges the advantages of e) Agreed e) 4.4.3 updated working with RMG, though believe this can be achieved by complimentary rather than joint development. The timing of the hospital development is dictated partly by the operational requirement to keep the hospital functioning effectively f) 4.7.11 The hospital is anxious that any temporary f) Noted f) 4.7.1. updated private car pick up/drop off in London St during Crossrail build does not impede access to the hospital g) 4.7.23 Replace “Paddington Health Campus” and g) Agreed g) agreed replace with “St. Mary‟s” h) 5.6 Crossrail‟s assessment of traffic impact should h) Agreed h) agreed include the need to maintain emergency vehicle and patient ambulance access to the hospital i) 9.4 “continuing uncertainty about St Mary‟s site” i) Agreed i) 9.4 amended should emphasise this is in reference to the development of new hospital facilities only. The hospital service will remain on site and continue to grow as a successful NHS Trust into the future 13. Jeremy Edge a) Our interest in the draft brief is in relation to the advice a) Noted Knight Frank on behalf we are providing to our clients in relation to the North of City of Westminster Westminster Community School site at North Wharf Corporate Property Road 10 July 2008 b) We are surprised that Figure 1 fails to delineate the b) The boundary is of more planning brief boundary relevance to the public realm c) There is little analysis of the cumulative effect of the study. The brief itself is for the various proposals on Paddington. As such the brief station, and includes relevant appears to be just a further planning document in the potential developments in its jigsaw of planning policies that contribute to the environs planning guidance at Paddington Station. There is no c) The Planning Brief is not a overall guiding vision for the area, and the overall masterplan. Policy Framework is impression is that this part of Paddington is likely to be set out in UDP, and the use of redeveloped with a similar dis-jointed incremental legal agreements has not led to approach that has characterized the gradual the situation described arising development of Paddington over the last decade d) 2.21 should include NWCS as a “sensitive receptor d) Agreed d) Added at 2.22 site” e) There appears to have been little thought given to the e) Brief cannot dictate phasing phasing of development in the preparation of the brief, redevelopment, but it does which is particularly important due to the enormous consider impact on the public interference that will be caused to the local area at the realm, as the proposed public time Crossrail is constructed realm study will in more detail f) Further consideration needs to be given to the f) This will be part of the TIA/CCP arrangements for construction traffic, outlining routes process, as required by TfL and to be taken, capacities of the highway network, and the the council as highway authority inevitable need for traffic restrictions and road closures, and the extent to which other development can be realistically accommodated during this period. The lack of any clear capacity and phasing analysis is a major shortcoming of the brief. Chapter 9 could be reworked to draw together earlier chapters and consider the phasing and delivery of the regeneration of the station, its environs and the wider Basin area g) The draft satisfactorily considers public realm and g) Noted sustainability issues h) The brief is reasonable in terms of EA, green buildings i) Noted and accessibility, and CCP in Chapter 6 i) It is surprising that so little is made of opportunities for j) NWCS is one of the very few public open spaces in Chapter 7, particularly if NWCS opportunities that exist for site may be expected to provide such benefits to a open space. The brief must much greater extent in order to meet deficiencies concern itself with nearby practicalities. j) The planning benefits chapter appears to seek only j) There is potential for modest community infrastructure expectations. It‟s not infrastructure requirements to be clear to what extent affordable housing, education or prioritized, as suggested in 4.4 other community benefits will be sought. Will infrastructure expectations override these? k) The proposed public realm study will be important in k) Agreed terms of satisfactory delivery of the development projects. l) The brief seeks in many cases l) Regrettably we believe the draft brief raises many to highlight problems to be questions rather than providing a clear assessment of overcome, but does also draw how development proposals will be considered attention to council priorities 14. Giles Dolphin a) Paragraph 3.4 makes reference to London Plan para a) Agreed a) Changed Head of Planning 5.38. This should be amended to Para 5.34 in the Decisions adopted LP GLA b) The GLA is keen to maximise the potential for b) Noted 29 July 2008 development, and would welcome the opportunity to participate in pre-application discussions. The case officer is Matthew Carpen (7983 4272) c) Representatives from the GLA c) The GLA is keen to participate in the proposed public family have attended and are still realm study. The contact will be Emma Butler (7983 invited to PSRG meetings 4538 d) I consider the plan to be in general conformity with the d) Welcomed and agreed. Reply London Plan. Please send a copy of the adoption sent from Graham King 22 August statement in due course 2008 15. Steven Mills a) The revised versions of para 4.1.4 and 8.2 should note a) Agreed Senior Town Planner that S106 contributions will be negotiated according to Network Rail the nature and impact of development 26 August 2008 b) Our Crossrail Team will be responding to you b) Not received imminently on any issues specific to the interface between NR and CLRLL, to supplement this letter c) 2.19 – There is a need for an agreed management c) Noted plan, and it‟s important that our operational interests and statutory responsibilities are safeguarded should be safeguarded if afforded UNESCO designation d) 4.1.1 - it should not be implied nor expected here that d) Not agreed. Policy DES4 seeks new development should replicate existing it in certain circumstances e) 4.1.11 – The last sentence should read “…IC125 fleet e) Agreed e) 4.1.15 amended before 2016, which will require reconfiguration and extension of a number of platforms at the Praed St end to accommodate much longer trains than currently service the station.” It should also note that FGW has a franchise commitment requiring them to both maintain the integrity of revenue protected areas, and not to interfere with public rights of way and generally not to obstruct pedestrian flows through the station f) 4.6.6/.7 – Housing Great Western studio Tenants at f) Agreed f) 4.5.7 altered Enterprise House is unlikely to be financially viable without external subsidy. Select Committee‟s request to explore EH as a potential site would only be productive if it has a wider scope and includes other properties and landowners in the area. The onus should not be on NR alone. g) 4.6.8 – Our Crossrail Team note that they may require g) Noted. 4.5.3 and 4.5.7 EH for their own office accommodation. recognise that h) 4.7.27 – This new para seeking LBC for Crossrail h) 4.6.28 essentially recognises works would seem to result in unnecessary duplication that as heritage issues have already been considered in the hybrid bill and the LPA will be involved in the details as they emerge. A Heritage Agreement might be one way to address this, but NR cannot support the introduction of this para. i) 4.10.7 – NR, Crossrail and LUL have formed the i) Agreed. 4.1.12 explains i) (what would have Paddington Integrated Project (PIP, funded by NR) been) 4.10.7 which will require close working with Hammerson to deleted get the best results j) 5.2 - As PIP has begun an Integrated Modelling Study j) Agreed j) 2nd bullet of Paddington, bringing together all future forecasts amended and assumptions so one set of figures is used by all going forward. k) 8.2 – The list of benefits cannot be used to set k) Agreed, although the list gives k) 8.2 amended expectations for future developments on NR land, an indication of potential instead they should be negotiated from first principles contributions according to the impact of the proposal in question. 16. Stella Bye a) 4.1.1 – A range of options should be considered as a)Refer to UDP policy DES4 Crossrail Senior part of any new development at Eastbourne Terrace, Scheme Sponsor not just a replication of the façade but also alternative 24 October 2008 modern solutions. b) 4.1.2/.3/.8 – S106 associated with earlier Span 4 b) Agreed. PIP is discussed at b) 4.1.8 amended application can‟t be used as the starting point for future 4.1.11 negotiations, as the scale of the applications are different. Reference needs to be made to the Paddington Integrated Project, formed to deliver an integrated scheme for the north side of the station. c) 4.1.6 – Propose the para be updated from the second d) 4.1.6 updated sentence as follows “Network Rail has proposed a c) Further updated design for the refurbishment of Span 4, currently awaiting LBC. A separate LBC has been approved for the demolition of the Lynx building on the Red Star Deck and works will be complete by the end of 2008” d) 4.1.9 – Needs to reflect the latest PIP proposal for a d) Noted d) added at 4.1.11 Vertical Circulation Core e) Whilst this is the current e) 4.1.10 changed e) 4.1.10 – The relocation of taxis will be permanent, so aspiration, it would be prudent to this entire para needs to reflect this keep options open f) 4.1.12 & .13 – This work will fall under PIP f) Agreed f & g) Integrated g) 4.2.1/.2Future use of the Triangle Site will be g) Agreed into 4.1.11 addressed through PIP h) 4.3.3 – There are currently no proposals for an h) Agreed h) reference extended glazed roof over station concourse, nor a removed new access to the station through the Lawn area i) 4.6 – The rehousing of Great Western Studios is i) Noted, although select i) 4.5 amended unlikely to be a financially viable option unless external committee requested contributions are provided investigation, a site has been j) 4.6.7/.8 – It is likely that Enterprise House will be found retained by Network Rail for Railway use j) Noted j) 4.5.3 amended k) 4.7 – see general comments above k) Noted k) Amendments l) 4.7.24 – Should be re-drafted to reflect any throughout 4.6 undertakings and assurances given by SoS during the l) Agreed l) 4.6.26 amended passing of the Bill. We are not aware of an undertaking obliging direct link between Crossrail and H&C line m) 4.7.27 – Reference to LBC not necessary as this is m) Depends on final proposals if m) 4.6.30 amended covered in the heritage deed of the Act. Further, LBC heritage deed does cover all should only apply to works on the station building, and works not on “all works” n) 4.8.9 – 4-18 BBR could be taller than 6 storeys at the n)“unlikely to be appropriate” eastern end retained as a guide o) 4.9.5 amended o) 4.10.5/.7 & 5.23 – this work will fall under PIP o) Agreed to refer to PIP p) 6.8 – The Public Realm Study also seeks to p) Agreed p) 6.8 deleted, 6.2 understand how all various construction works around amended station will fit with each other, in order to mitigate impacts on ped flows and public realm q) 8.2 – We continue to be concerned about the current q) Noted q) 8.2 now assumption that the planning benefits secured in 2003 reworded, to give would be appropriate in future developments. The an indication scale of benefits may not be affordable given the railway is publicly funded r) 9.3 – suggest rewording “Any proposals put forward by Network Rail and other transport operators, which r) The council hopes that the brief r) 9.3 amended require approval from the LPA, will be considered will act as a guide even if the against the aspirations of this brief. The brief is the council doesn‟t retain its powers. yardstick against which applications will be considered but won‟t have any impact on development that is already permitted by other acts/orders etc. 17. David Hammond a) Welcome the recognition of the proximity of the Grand a) Noted Future London Team Union Canal Site of Interest for Nature Conservation Natural England (SINC) and the potential for improving the public realm 30 October 2008 including the canal environment b) 1.6, 2.17 & 4.7.21 - PPS9 is not mentioned under b) Agreed b) 3.1 and 4.1.11 Policy Framework. Para14 states that “Development amended proposals provide many opportunities for building in beneficial biodiversity or geological features as part of good design. When considering proposals, LPA‟s should maximize such opportunities in and around developments, using planning obligations where appropriate. This would link into S40 of the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006, which imposes an important new duty on all public authorities to have regard to biodiversity c) 5.20/.22 – New and improved access to the canal are c) Noted cautiously welcomed subject to further detailed applications and suitable environmental improvements d) Welcome a review of the public realm d) Noted e) 7.2 – The requirements to be supplied to support an e) Noted EIA accord with Natural England‟s wishes, and the provision of EIA and CCP are supported f) Green and sustainable building provision in line with f) Noted BREEAM is welcomed and supported g) Natural England make no formal objection, but g) Agreed recommends that advice is sought from other sources, including GLA biodiversity, and WCC ecology or local group of London Wildlife Trust h) Your Council should give consideration to entering into h) Westminster does contribute to an agreement with Greenspace Information for Greater GIGL London (GIGL) i) 2 websites (GLA and London Biodiversity Partnership) i) Welcomed given to assist in considering the nature conservation implications of developments 18. Oliver Sheppard RMG seeks the endorsement of the P&CD Committee to The RMG submission represents DP9 the planning and development principles redevelopment of a first attempt to scope the On behalf of the Royal its Paddington site as follows: parameters of development of the Mail Group (RMG) site. The station brief is not 10 November 2008 intended as a comprehensive brief for the PO site, instead concentrating on points pertinent to the station. a) Recognises and supports RMG‟s efforts to work with a) Noted. 4.3.3 does not restrict the City Council and St Mary‟s Hospital (Imperial that option. College Healthcare NHS Trust) to enable the independent development of the RMG site and its coordination with the emerging new masterplan for the St Mary‟s Estate b) The RMG site represents a unique opportunity to b) Agreed enable significant improvements to the Bakerloo Line station comprising an expanded ticket hall, escalator and step-free access and the provision of an additional escalator access from ticket hall to platform concourse as illustrated by the “Paddington Station & Environs Planning Brief – Public Consultation Response on behalf of RMG” (“the Response”) c) Endorses the proposals for the Bakerloo Line ticket c) Endorse the way forward, hall and station improvements and associated public although the case for narrowing realm and associated highway works in London St and London St needs to be made, and Praed St set out in “the Response”, and recognises note the statement that the that this scheme has the support of LU, Crossrail and railway companies support the Network Rail scheme d) Recognises and supports the provision of a basement d) Endorse this way forward zone to enable structural provisions to be made within the RMG site so as to enable the Bakerloo Line improvements to be undertaken independently at a separate time to the redevelopment of the building e) Recognises that the general arrangement of uses and e) Justification would be required layout of the replacement building on the RMG site in order to offset the requirements shown in “the Response” is acceptable subject to for residential on site detailed design f) Recognises that a replacement building illustrated in f) The height and bulk of the “the Response” is an appropriate response to its proposed development are planning policy (PSPS and OA) and townscape context unacceptable, and do not and which is both necessary to deliver the transport represent exceptional design and public realm benefits subject to detailed design quality and assessment of its impact on nearby listed buildings, views in and out of conservation areas and the townscape generally and in recognition of the need to secure exceptional design quality g) Recognises that “the Response” provides a basis for g) It provides a basis, subject to justifying the relaxation of the City Council‟s usual detailed justification, although this policy requirement set out in CENT3 and PSPA2 and is also now complicated by the Preferred Option 8 (July 2008) for increases in Mayor‟s S106 policy commercial floorspace to be matched by new residential accommodation in recognition of the very special transport and public realm benefits that the scheme would enable and that these benefits would be taken into account on other aspects of any S106 agreement negotiations h) Recognition that the transport and public realm h) Subject to Mayoral decision improvements illustrated by the RMG submission are sufficient to offset the proposed Crossrail Levy in this instance i) Endorses the proposals for maintaining necessary i) Agreed access to the Mail Rail infrastructure and the structural integrity of that railway infrastructure 19. Charlotte Saini a) Child Poverty (4.6.7/4.11.1) - S106 could help improve a) Noted for consideration during Children‟s Services outcomes for children in workless households. forthcoming revision of the S106 (CS) Development Suggest any future development around Ent Hse for SPG Manager GWS should include a contribution towards child WCC poverty, for instance working with the BID to provide 24 October 2008 access to employment/volunteering schemes, or a financial contribution to affordable childcare places. Alternatively planners could undertake something similar within any of the new developments around Praed St. CS seek confirmation that child poverty and the causes of child poverty will be addressed where appropriate within the boundaries of planning obligations by working with children‟s services and economic development b) Child care provision - Paddington Station and some of b) Noted its immediate surroundings are in the poorest 10% of the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI). 25.8% of children and young people in Hyde Park Ward are dependent on workless benefits. Hyde Park wrd has 3.6 children to every childcare place. There is a need for further consultation to establish the levels of demand for childcare in the area, and what provision would best facilitate those low income and unemployed families to access training and employment opportunities CS requests that cttee notes this info, and takes the need for consultation on further childcare provision into consideration when deciding on future developments within the station environs c) Children‟s centres - Due to success of existing (Mickey c) Noted Star on St Michaels St W2), and demand for new Children‟s centres from parents, expansion of provision is necessary CS requests that committee notes this information and takes the need for expansion into account when deciding on future developments in the Paddington Station environs d) Children‟s services - CS requests that suitable d) Noted, for consideration in the provision for play is made alongside any new forthcoming Sustainable Buildings residential developments arising from the brief. It also SPD requests that pushchair lobbies and lifts be included in new developments e) Social and Community Fund – The S&CF is welcomed e) CS now involved by CS. CS would like to be involved in the next round bidding process – either in helping to decide which bids should be accepted (relating to children‟s services), or by bidding themselves (if this is permitted) 20. David Newell a) We saw the response from PRACT which we support. a) Noted Hyde Park Association b) We are pleased to see works still progressing on b) Noted 9 January 2009 several schemes despite the recession, and Paddington is changing rapidly c) Thank you for all you and your colleagues are doing for c) Welcomed us 21. Bob (RV) Rogers, a) Home straddles a worksite a) Noted resident, 89 Westbourne Court, Orsett Terrace 2 September 2008 & 4 September 2008 b) Noise and vibration – 24 hour working is of paramount b) During the construction of concern as a resident living and sleeping in the area. Crossrail there will be a manned Noise levels vary throughout the day and through the 24 hour helpline that the week but between 1800 and 0600 hours noise levels Nominated Undertakers' have a drop dramatically and at 0300 or on Sundays it can be duty to provide throughout the almost tranquil. Any additional, unnecessary sources of duration of the project to deal with noise during the quieter times can be particularly reports / complaints. (This is a noticeable and objectionable. Noise levels also different Parliamentary Undertaking). The at higher levels and therefore question over where the Crossrail Act has also established noise monitoring surveys will be taken. Sleep an independent Complaints deprivation is a form of torture. Commissioner who will adjudicate where the public are not satisfied with actions taken by the Nominated Undertaker. c) Had noise issues in the past which the council have c) Noted addressed and dealt with do not want issues to happen again. d) Area underneath Westbourne Court currently used as a d) Noted. The EMR will provide car park – concerned about noise impact from the use the basis for this to be considered of this area as a worksite. Past experiences of Network when planning construction. Rail using this area caused considerable stress. e) Girders in the undercroft should be fully protected e) This has been raised with during operations on site. Crossrail, and is being actively considered by the construction planners f) Make workers aware that they are working underneath f) As above residential units. Also concerned for residents of Brewers Court, Orsett Terrace and Gloucester Terrace. g) Require emergency telephone number manned by a Crossrail's 24 hour helpdesk's human being. telephone number is 0345 602 3813 or by web address at firstname.lastname@example.org h) One way system under the building should help protect h) This will be raised with against reversing noises. Crossrail i) Emphasise absolute necessity of eliminating noise and i) Noted. The EMR will minimise vibration as far as possible during the Crossrail noise and vibration construction period especially at night. 22. Paul Jenkins, a) Welcome potential opportunities for employment and a) Noted Westminster NHS, economic regeneration that Crossrail brings to Primary Care Trust Westminster and note potential benefits that this will bring to the health of our population. 15 September 2008 b) Welcome points made on noise and air quality b) Noted throughout the document and agree that these are health risks both for our resident and commuter populations. c) Principal pollutant is traffic. Several health care a) Agreed, including the diesel premises, where there will be patients with existing train engines. There may be a fall respiratory disease and particularly susceptible to poor off in air pollution levels when air quality, are likely to experience high levels of traffic Crossrail opens, though a congestion particularly from HGVs which usually run on temporary increase during diesel a key pollutant. construction is possible. d) Note increased dust risk in the west of the borough. d) Noted e) Anticipate raise in number of injuries that would require e) Noted local health care and would expect that these may be treated at the central London A&E departments at University College Hospital Trust and Imperial College Healthcare Trust as well as the walk in centres at Soho and Victoria. f) Assume strong health and safety practices would f) Crossrail will be asked to mitigate these as far as possible. Would welcome engage involvement in the development of any major incident plans around the development. g) W2 Health centre will be affected with risks of poor g) The community liaison access, transport issues, noise, vibration and dust. meetings provide a platform for Assume local GP practices will have had the opportunity concerns to be raised. The EMR to comment on the aspects of the Crossrail will minimise impacts. development that will specifically affect their service.
Pages to are hidden for
"Received From"Please download to view full document