Received From by mX32o3


									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
                         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
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
                        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
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
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
                        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
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
                    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
                    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
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
                   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
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
                      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
                        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
                      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
                      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

21. Bob (RV) Rogers,   a) Home straddles a worksite                                   a) Noted
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
                     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
                     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
                     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

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.

To top