Watford Junction Draft Development Brief

Showing comments and forms 121 to 150 of 171

Comment

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 758

Received: 02/10/2016

Respondent: Nascot Residents Association

Representation Summary:

Very little about how the station itself will be improved which includes access issue from those approaching from the North, cover on all platforms, access between main line and platform 11, platforms 1-4

Full text:

The Nascot Residents Association thank the Council for being consulted on the changes to the Watford Local Plan and also on the brief for the Junction station regeneration. In particular, we very much appreciated the attendance of Catriona Ramsay at our recent meeting to inform us of key details contained within these documents.
The Nascot Residents Association fully support to desire of the Council & other agencies to encourage development which expedites the urgent need to redevelopment the station to ensure it is safe and fit for purpose to cope with the increasing number of users.
We are encouraged to see that appropriate community facilities (e.g. schools, open space) to support the large amount of housing is recognised and included.

Our main concern is that the brief says very little about how the station itself should be improved. The Council, as planning authority, needs to set out minimum standards for any new station buildings, including:
* Additional access to the station such as from the St Albans Road/Penn Road side for those approaching form the north.
* Adequate cover on all the platforms to ensure passengers are not exposed to the elements as well as all the dangers from wet surfaces that currently characterise the station platforms.
* Expanded means of entry and exit from the platforms in place of the current dangerously overcrowded tunnel.
* Improved access between the "main-line" platforms, and the currently distant Abbey Line Platform 11.
* Improved access between the "main-line" platforms and platforms 1-4, which will soon see massively expanded use when the Met Line is diverted to the Junction station.
* Increased and better provision for cycle parking to encourage more "active travelling" by bike & foot to the station and to reduce the problems arising from people driving along congested roads to the station
* Increased and better provision for cycle parking to encourage more "active travelling" by bike & foot to the station and to reduce the problems arising from people driving along congested roads to the station

Comment

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 759

Received: 02/10/2016

Respondent: Nascot Residents Association

Representation Summary:

Increased and better provision for cycle parking to encourage more "active travelling" by bike & foot to the station and to reduce the problems arising from people driving along congested roads to the station

Full text:

The Nascot Residents Association thank the Council for being consulted on the changes to the Watford Local Plan and also on the brief for the Junction station regeneration. In particular, we very much appreciated the attendance of Catriona Ramsay at our recent meeting to inform us of key details contained within these documents.
The Nascot Residents Association fully support to desire of the Council & other agencies to encourage development which expedites the urgent need to redevelopment the station to ensure it is safe and fit for purpose to cope with the increasing number of users.
We are encouraged to see that appropriate community facilities (e.g. schools, open space) to support the large amount of housing is recognised and included.

Our main concern is that the brief says very little about how the station itself should be improved. The Council, as planning authority, needs to set out minimum standards for any new station buildings, including:
* Additional access to the station such as from the St Albans Road/Penn Road side for those approaching form the north.
* Adequate cover on all the platforms to ensure passengers are not exposed to the elements as well as all the dangers from wet surfaces that currently characterise the station platforms.
* Expanded means of entry and exit from the platforms in place of the current dangerously overcrowded tunnel.
* Improved access between the "main-line" platforms, and the currently distant Abbey Line Platform 11.
* Improved access between the "main-line" platforms and platforms 1-4, which will soon see massively expanded use when the Met Line is diverted to the Junction station.
* Increased and better provision for cycle parking to encourage more "active travelling" by bike & foot to the station and to reduce the problems arising from people driving along congested roads to the station
* Increased and better provision for cycle parking to encourage more "active travelling" by bike & foot to the station and to reduce the problems arising from people driving along congested roads to the station

Comment

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 763

Received: 18/09/2016

Respondent: Mr Jamie Thompson

Representation Summary:

Abbey Line should be retained as a heavy rail link and the potentially tunneling of the line should be considered.

Full text:

The primary purpose of a railway station is to enable passengers to change trains. Watford Junction is a major station that is hampered by both the capacity available from its infrastructure as well as wider network constraints. Those network constraints however are going to be greatly reduced once HS2 opens, and this unlocks the opportunity to remove the constraints at Watford Junction and unleash its full potential.

The masterplan proposals, as they stand, provide no consideration to improving the railway station's capacity, hemming the railway within its current boundary. They must be altered to enable the railway to grow - mainly by adding more platforms, but also by improving the safety of the station by widening the existing platforms to handle the dangerously larger crowds that are so prevalent.

Few fast services currently stop at Watford Junction due to the network constraints of having to provide capacity to serve Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow. Every train that stops at Watford Junction means less trains can run on the fast lines, so it's understandable why Watford stops have been reduced to nearly nothing over the years as trains speeds have increased.

HS2 changes all of this though, there will suddenly be capacity to run fast services calling at all of the regional major stations once again: Euston, Watford, Leighton, Bletchley, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham, etc., unlocking connectivity and growth across the region.

To maximise the benefits of this, additional platforms at Watford Junction will a) enable more services to call, b) those services to dwell longer without impacting capacity or safety, improving the passenger interchange experience, and c) they provide flexibility in operational matters: i.e. overtaking, managing disruption, etc.

There are 3 opportunities to add platforms at Watford Junction, each requiring more of the master plan to be altered than the previous.

The first is to reinstate platform 5 as a through platform. This requires Iveco House to be altered, or more likely demolished.

The second is to rebuild platform 10 as a through platform. This provides the slow lines with three platforms, which means the terminating services from the south can use platform 9 without any conflicting movements as they will not have to cross the southbound line. It also means services can terminate from the north if required, as well as overtake services serving a platform.

The third and final stage is the construction of a new island platform alongside platforms 9+10. This along with the other works would provide 8 platforms, thus enabling the fast and slow lines to both have 4 platforms, two in each direction.

The track alignments required for this mean that some of the buildings in the plan need to be altered or removed. I believe that 21 would require the loss of the buildings alongside the railway, 13 would require some alterations to the southern end, and 16A and 16 C would be lost, though enlargement of 16B would enable most of the capacity to be maintained. I have taken the liberty of making some annotations to a diagram taken from the document to illustrate my concepts and attached it to my representation. The illustration assumes no platform widening, and would obviously alter accordingly should that be factored in.

One final point is that concerning the St. Albans branch line (the "Abbey Line"). The line as it stands cuts through the development, creating a barrier. The report raises the conversion of the line to light rail once again, but it is essential that the line is retained as a heavy rail link as its potential uses in that regard are far higher than is widely considered, i.e. a connection to the proposed Radlett freight facility would give heavy rail access to the line through Watford, connections to the Midland line could give access to City station, and similar works could give access to Hatfield should the disused rail route be reinstated.

I would like to ensure that consideration has been made to investigate whether burying the line underground in a shallow tunnel through the development has been investigated. Doing so would remove the barrier, but would also facilitate the future connection of the line through to the London Overground tracks on the opposite side of the station in the future, creating a single through route which would be far more efficient to operate more frequently than the current branch shuttle, and far more usefully than conversion to light rail.

Orphanage Road is the primary obstacle to this as any tunnel would need to pass beneath this road, necessitating some challenging gradients. Given the scope of the master plan, I would like to know if consideration been made to replacing the link that Orphanage Road provides with a new route through the development. Failing that however, new underground platforms at Watford Junction could be located far closer to the mainline platforms, greatly improving the passenger experience and promoting use of the line.

Comment

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 768

Received: 02/10/2016

Respondent: Mrs Sophie summerhayes

Representation Summary:

There is no mention of public transport or cycle routes

Full text:

I am writing on behalf of the Watford area green party who have a few concerns regarding the development. We understand the need for housing and building up, but we have issues with the amount of parking being proposed which will cause more traffic to an already congested area. There also seem to be no mention of public transport or cycle routes. We are also hoping that the buildings will be sustainable and there will be a large number of affordable housing as young people are increasingly being priced out of the market, especially in Watford. Many thanks Sophie Summerhayes.

Comment

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 769

Received: 02/10/2016

Respondent: Mrs Sophie summerhayes

Representation Summary:

Need for affordable housing

Full text:

I am writing on behalf of the Watford area green party who have a few concerns regarding the development. We understand the need for housing and building up, but we have issues with the amount of parking being proposed which will cause more traffic to an already congested area. There also seem to be no mention of public transport or cycle routes. We are also hoping that the buildings will be sustainable and there will be a large number of affordable housing as young people are increasingly being priced out of the market, especially in Watford. Many thanks Sophie Summerhayes.

Comment

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 770

Received: 02/10/2016

Respondent: Mrs Sophie summerhayes

Representation Summary:

Hope that the buildings will be sustainable

Full text:

I am writing on behalf of the Watford area green party who have a few concerns regarding the development. We understand the need for housing and building up, but we have issues with the amount of parking being proposed which will cause more traffic to an already congested area. There also seem to be no mention of public transport or cycle routes. We are also hoping that the buildings will be sustainable and there will be a large number of affordable housing as young people are increasingly being priced out of the market, especially in Watford. Many thanks Sophie Summerhayes.

Comment

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 771

Received: 01/10/2016

Respondent: Ms Victoria Willis

Representation Summary:

Where is the cycle parking provision, as bad thought out cycle parking has proved time again to fail to encourage use. This includes cycle lanes on surrounding roads - this reduces bikes use and therefore reduce car use

Full text:

I object to this proposal on environmental grounds; I don't see evidence of realistic efforts to meet your sustainability targets e.g. Reduce C02 emissions.
1) Where is the cycle parking provision? Badly thought out cycle parking has been proved time again to fail to encourage use. See WestTrans Report on cycle parking.
2) Where are the segregated cycle lanes on surrounding roads? Without them, research has shown it is unlikely journeys by bike will displace car journeys. Disincentivising driving by reducing car parking also works. See 'Urban Transport without the hot air' by Steve Melia.

Comment

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 772

Received: 02/10/2016

Respondent: Ms Julie Spicer

Representation Summary:

Passing loop to increase frequency of trains and Ticket machines on all Abbey Line stations

Full text:

Abbey Line:
Support the development brief providing that the Abbey Line platform is brought much closer to, and accessible from, the rest of the station. Ideally if the branch was re-routed to join up with the present platform 10 'bay' (dead end), a cross-platform interchange with mainline London-bound services could be created.

The ability to run through-trains from the Abbey Line to the main line in the London-bound direction must be retained.

Passing loop to increase frequency of trains.
Ticket machines on all Abbey Line stations.
No to the replacement of the existing service with a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)!

Comment

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 773

Received: 02/10/2016

Respondent: Ms Julie Spicer

Representation Summary:

Support the development brief providing that the Abbey Line platform is brought much closer to, and accessible from, the rest of the station, including connections with London bound services.

Full text:

Abbey Line:
Support the development brief providing that the Abbey Line platform is brought much closer to, and accessible from, the rest of the station. Ideally if the branch was re-routed to join up with the present platform 10 'bay' (dead end), a cross-platform interchange with mainline London-bound services could be created.

The ability to run through-trains from the Abbey Line to the main line in the London-bound direction must be retained.

Passing loop to increase frequency of trains.
Ticket machines on all Abbey Line stations.
No to the replacement of the existing service with a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)!

Object

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 788

Received: 27/09/2016

Respondent: Mr Jamie Thompson

Representation Summary:

The plans make no consideration for re-routing the Abbey line back along its original alignment where heavy rail could aid regional growth.

Full text:

The primary purpose of a rail station is to provide capacity for passengers to access trains. Watford Junction is a major hub severely hampered by constraints on the wider rail network, but any redevelopment must provide for growth when these are removed lest Watford become a permanent bottleneck.

My primary objection is that the development seems to make no allowance for the provision of more platforms or lines. Given the dangerous levels of overcrowding the station already experiences, provision of more platforms is a necessity now, let alone after HS2 opens and more fast services will be able to serve the station. Consider also that with the Metropolitan Line extension, a potential Crossrail branch, improvements to the Abbey Line, as well as the increased demand from the redevelopment itself, the fact that the station platforms are already at capacity during the peaks means that more capacity will definitely be required moving forward.

As an illustrative example, conversion of platform 10 to another standard through platform would enable services to a) overtake if needed, b) terminate in platform 9 without any capacity-reducing conflicting movements, and c) would enable services from the north to be terminated and turned back in times of disruption.

As another example, today, fast services barely stop at Watford Junction due to capacity constraints - the fast lines have to serve Euston to Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow, and all major stations between, and stops at Watford reduce the number of trains that can operate. Once HS2 opens, the case for more fast line stops at the major stations between Birmingham and Euston will greatly increase, we are likely to see regular services between Birmingham and Euston serving Watford, Bletchley, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry etc. These will require more platforms as well, and as Iveco House/The Junction isn't going anywhere any time soon, this could be achieved by adding new capacity on the eastern side of the station, giving the fast lines use of platforms 6, 7, and 8, with the slow lines then using platform 9 and new through platforms 10 & 11.

Having 3 platforms for both the fast and slow services would be a massive improvement, but to really future-proof the station and to cater to the ambition for the town we all share, the construction of another full island platform on the east side of the station would enable, with the other works listed above (and the redevelopment of Iveco House/The Junction to restore platform 5 as a through platform), 8 platforms - 4 for the slow lines, and 4 for the fast lines (or 3 fast line platforms without the platform 5 works). Services would be able to arrive into a platform as the previous service was still departing, increasing capacity massively, and increasing the time services could dwell, improving the ability for passengers to switch trains.

The primary impact to the plans you have produced is that the buildings alongside the railway will need to be altered to enable this work to happen in the future when required. Looking at the plans, I believe these to be 21, 13, 16A, 16C.

I also note that the plans make no consideration for re-routing the Abbey line back along its original alignment. It was rerouted to its current alignment to increase the level of car parking available without requiring a crossing at the cost of making the interchange much, much worse, and as this car parking is now going to be redeveloped the opportunity to restore the interchange presents itself once more by moving the Abbey Line platforms back closer to the mainline platforms. The Abbey Line is an essential heavy-rail link and has a lot of potential for regional growth (i.e. a short connection to the proposed Radlett freight facility would open a great deal of rail freight options), so conversion to light rail is not a viable proposition and the plans have to consider the best way to deal with a standard rail line passing through the development site whilst retaining the ability for expanding it in the future to a full double track line.

Comment

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 789

Received: 01/10/2016

Respondent: Dr Francesco Anselmo

Representation Summary:

Concerns about high rise buildings that would cause overshadowing and wind problems to the surrounding areas, the distances between buildings are too small. Suggests that brief should include results of simulations in the consultation document.

Full text:

Developing the area between Watford Junction and North Watford with a mix of residential, commercial, education buildings and parks that connect North Watford to the station is excellent, however I am concerned about the following points: the proposal includes high rise buildings that would cause overshadowing and wind problems to the surrounding areas, the distances between buildings are too small (you should include results of simulations in the consultation document); you should include cycling paths; you should include a pedestrian link between colonial way and Brixton Rd; you should include cultural and community buildings (museum, cinema, theatre) and parks.

Comment

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 790

Received: 01/10/2016

Respondent: Dr Francesco Anselmo

Representation Summary:

There should be inclusion of cycle paths

Full text:

Developing the area between Watford Junction and North Watford with a mix of residential, commercial, education buildings and parks that connect North Watford to the station is excellent, however I am concerned about the following points: the proposal includes high rise buildings that would cause overshadowing and wind problems to the surrounding areas, the distances between buildings are too small (you should include results of simulations in the consultation document); you should include cycling paths; you should include a pedestrian link between colonial way and Brixton Rd; you should include cultural and community buildings (museum, cinema, theatre) and parks.

Comment

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 791

Received: 01/10/2016

Respondent: Dr Francesco Anselmo

Representation Summary:

The brief should include a pedestrian link between colonial way and Brixton Rd

Full text:

Developing the area between Watford Junction and North Watford with a mix of residential, commercial, education buildings and parks that connect North Watford to the station is excellent, however I am concerned about the following points: the proposal includes high rise buildings that would cause overshadowing and wind problems to the surrounding areas, the distances between buildings are too small (you should include results of simulations in the consultation document); you should include cycling paths; you should include a pedestrian link between colonial way and Brixton Rd; you should include cultural and community buildings (museum, cinema, theatre) and parks.

Comment

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 792

Received: 01/10/2016

Respondent: Dr Francesco Anselmo

Representation Summary:

The brief should include a pedestrian link between colonial way and Brixton Rd

Full text:

Developing the area between Watford Junction and North Watford with a mix of residential, commercial, education buildings and parks that connect North Watford to the station is excellent, however I am concerned about the following points: the proposal includes high rise buildings that would cause overshadowing and wind problems to the surrounding areas, the distances between buildings are too small (you should include results of simulations in the consultation document); you should include cycling paths; you should include a pedestrian link between colonial way and Brixton Rd; you should include cultural and community buildings (museum, cinema, theatre) and parks.

Comment

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 793

Received: 30/09/2016

Respondent: Intu Properties plc

Agent: NLP Planning

Representation Summary:

the scheme should not seek to create a new retail destination in an out of town location that could adversely affect the vitality and viability of Watford town centre. Preference should be for convenience retailing, and that comparison shopping should be limited. This should be subject to the sequential retail tests and based on the masterplan.

Full text:

Please see attached.

Comment

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 794

Received: 30/09/2016

Respondent: Mr Richard Harrington

Representation Summary:

Encourage the council to continue working with the stakeholders

Full text:

As the Member of Parliament for Watford, the full redevelopment of Watford Junction Station is one of my key priorities. I am glad to note that the Council shares my commitment to improving the station and wider area.

I would encourage the council to continue working with the stakeholders that I have introduced you to and get somewhere with the various proposals which already exist from outside sources for the station. I have been holding meetings with yourselves to this aim as well as with Network Rail, landowners, Transport Ministers and London Midland.

As the brief states, since the 1970s there have been several proposals to redevelop the station and the area.

In my opinion it is now urgent that we get this done as footfall continues to increase at the station.

I am glad that the report recognises that the forecourt which was redesigned at large cost just a few years ago is not fit for purpose and exacerbates problems with bus travel, passenger drop off, taxis and accessing the car park. I have demanded action on these points several times but we need major change.

I also want at least one more access point to the station, preferably from St Albans Road and an easily accessible multi-level car park along with more retail and food outlets.

As I know officials are aware, this brief would completely change the character and use this central area. We need homes for local people and the area, as you recognise, could be so much more than it currently is. For that reason I welcome the broad ideas contained within the brief. I will look closely at detailed plans when available.

To my mind the co-objective with equal primacy to regenerating the area is improving the station, along with the passenger experience, station use and safety. I do not want this objective to be forgotten. Our town needs a better station.

You may note a petition supporting my aims has been circulated. I am sure this will be presented to you by the organisers in due course.

Comment

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 795

Received: 30/09/2016

Respondent: Mr Richard Harrington

Representation Summary:

Glad that the report recognises that the forecourt which was redesigned at large cost just a few years ago is not fit for purpose and exacerbates problems with bus travel, passenger drop off, taxis and accessing the car park. This needs a major change.

Full text:

As the Member of Parliament for Watford, the full redevelopment of Watford Junction Station is one of my key priorities. I am glad to note that the Council shares my commitment to improving the station and wider area.

I would encourage the council to continue working with the stakeholders that I have introduced you to and get somewhere with the various proposals which already exist from outside sources for the station. I have been holding meetings with yourselves to this aim as well as with Network Rail, landowners, Transport Ministers and London Midland.

As the brief states, since the 1970s there have been several proposals to redevelop the station and the area.

In my opinion it is now urgent that we get this done as footfall continues to increase at the station.

I am glad that the report recognises that the forecourt which was redesigned at large cost just a few years ago is not fit for purpose and exacerbates problems with bus travel, passenger drop off, taxis and accessing the car park. I have demanded action on these points several times but we need major change.

I also want at least one more access point to the station, preferably from St Albans Road and an easily accessible multi-level car park along with more retail and food outlets.

As I know officials are aware, this brief would completely change the character and use this central area. We need homes for local people and the area, as you recognise, could be so much more than it currently is. For that reason I welcome the broad ideas contained within the brief. I will look closely at detailed plans when available.

To my mind the co-objective with equal primacy to regenerating the area is improving the station, along with the passenger experience, station use and safety. I do not want this objective to be forgotten. Our town needs a better station.

You may note a petition supporting my aims has been circulated. I am sure this will be presented to you by the organisers in due course.

Comment

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 796

Received: 30/09/2016

Respondent: Mr Richard Harrington

Representation Summary:

At least one more access point to the station, preferably from St Albans Road.

Full text:

As the Member of Parliament for Watford, the full redevelopment of Watford Junction Station is one of my key priorities. I am glad to note that the Council shares my commitment to improving the station and wider area.

I would encourage the council to continue working with the stakeholders that I have introduced you to and get somewhere with the various proposals which already exist from outside sources for the station. I have been holding meetings with yourselves to this aim as well as with Network Rail, landowners, Transport Ministers and London Midland.

As the brief states, since the 1970s there have been several proposals to redevelop the station and the area.

In my opinion it is now urgent that we get this done as footfall continues to increase at the station.

I am glad that the report recognises that the forecourt which was redesigned at large cost just a few years ago is not fit for purpose and exacerbates problems with bus travel, passenger drop off, taxis and accessing the car park. I have demanded action on these points several times but we need major change.

I also want at least one more access point to the station, preferably from St Albans Road and an easily accessible multi-level car park along with more retail and food outlets.

As I know officials are aware, this brief would completely change the character and use this central area. We need homes for local people and the area, as you recognise, could be so much more than it currently is. For that reason I welcome the broad ideas contained within the brief. I will look closely at detailed plans when available.

To my mind the co-objective with equal primacy to regenerating the area is improving the station, along with the passenger experience, station use and safety. I do not want this objective to be forgotten. Our town needs a better station.

You may note a petition supporting my aims has been circulated. I am sure this will be presented to you by the organisers in due course.

Comment

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 797

Received: 30/09/2016

Respondent: Mr Richard Harrington

Representation Summary:

An easily accessible multi-level car park requested.

Full text:

As the Member of Parliament for Watford, the full redevelopment of Watford Junction Station is one of my key priorities. I am glad to note that the Council shares my commitment to improving the station and wider area.

I would encourage the council to continue working with the stakeholders that I have introduced you to and get somewhere with the various proposals which already exist from outside sources for the station. I have been holding meetings with yourselves to this aim as well as with Network Rail, landowners, Transport Ministers and London Midland.

As the brief states, since the 1970s there have been several proposals to redevelop the station and the area.

In my opinion it is now urgent that we get this done as footfall continues to increase at the station.

I am glad that the report recognises that the forecourt which was redesigned at large cost just a few years ago is not fit for purpose and exacerbates problems with bus travel, passenger drop off, taxis and accessing the car park. I have demanded action on these points several times but we need major change.

I also want at least one more access point to the station, preferably from St Albans Road and an easily accessible multi-level car park along with more retail and food outlets.

As I know officials are aware, this brief would completely change the character and use this central area. We need homes for local people and the area, as you recognise, could be so much more than it currently is. For that reason I welcome the broad ideas contained within the brief. I will look closely at detailed plans when available.

To my mind the co-objective with equal primacy to regenerating the area is improving the station, along with the passenger experience, station use and safety. I do not want this objective to be forgotten. Our town needs a better station.

You may note a petition supporting my aims has been circulated. I am sure this will be presented to you by the organisers in due course.

Comment

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 798

Received: 30/09/2016

Respondent: Mr Richard Harrington

Representation Summary:

Need for more retail and food outlets

Full text:

As the Member of Parliament for Watford, the full redevelopment of Watford Junction Station is one of my key priorities. I am glad to note that the Council shares my commitment to improving the station and wider area.

I would encourage the council to continue working with the stakeholders that I have introduced you to and get somewhere with the various proposals which already exist from outside sources for the station. I have been holding meetings with yourselves to this aim as well as with Network Rail, landowners, Transport Ministers and London Midland.

As the brief states, since the 1970s there have been several proposals to redevelop the station and the area.

In my opinion it is now urgent that we get this done as footfall continues to increase at the station.

I am glad that the report recognises that the forecourt which was redesigned at large cost just a few years ago is not fit for purpose and exacerbates problems with bus travel, passenger drop off, taxis and accessing the car park. I have demanded action on these points several times but we need major change.

I also want at least one more access point to the station, preferably from St Albans Road and an easily accessible multi-level car park along with more retail and food outlets.

As I know officials are aware, this brief would completely change the character and use this central area. We need homes for local people and the area, as you recognise, could be so much more than it currently is. For that reason I welcome the broad ideas contained within the brief. I will look closely at detailed plans when available.

To my mind the co-objective with equal primacy to regenerating the area is improving the station, along with the passenger experience, station use and safety. I do not want this objective to be forgotten. Our town needs a better station.

You may note a petition supporting my aims has been circulated. I am sure this will be presented to you by the organisers in due course.

Object

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 799

Received: 28/09/2016

Respondent: Emma Brading

Representation Summary:

The strategy lacks plans for cycling and bus routes and non car modes of transport should be encouraged. A strategy for cycle lanes and bus stations should be a top priority.

Full text:

The plan set out does not address any strategy whatsoever for cycling or bus routes and has a huge emphasis on car parking spaces. The town centre location, with good amenities and busy train station, already has awful road congestion and is breaching air pollution limits. It should be a prime site to limit car use and encourage other modes of transport which is more a effective movement of people and better for our environment. Setting out a strategy for cycle lanes and bus stations should be a top priority and needs to be put out for consultation now.

Object

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 800

Received: 22/09/2016

Respondent: R Kowalewski

Representation Summary:

Concerns about the proposed density and its impacts on infrastructure and green land.

Full text:

The development is trying to squeeze too much into too small an area. Numbers need to be reduced. See attached letter

Object

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 801

Received: 22/09/2016

Respondent: R Kowalewski

Representation Summary:

A major concern is the lack of car parking that is planned.

Full text:

The development is trying to squeeze too much into too small an area. Numbers need to be reduced. See attached letter

Comment

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 802

Received: 22/09/2016

Respondent: R Kowalewski

Representation Summary:

Access to the area earmarked for this development is not very good, and the plans do not show any marked improvement

Full text:

The development is trying to squeeze too much into too small an area. Numbers need to be reduced. See attached letter

Comment

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 803

Received: 22/09/2016

Respondent: R Kowalewski

Representation Summary:

The roads also appear narrower than std how are for example refuse trucks going to get in and out.

Full text:

The development is trying to squeeze too much into too small an area. Numbers need to be reduced. See attached letter

Comment

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 804

Received: 27/09/2016

Respondent: Hertfordshire County Council

Representation Summary:

The proposed site size of the primary schools is smaller that HCC would consider the minimum, and there is no off site detached playing field provision within 400 metres of either site.

Full text:

The representations made on behalf of Hertfordshire County Council Property (Development Services) are given in the attached document.

Comment

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 805

Received: 27/09/2016

Respondent: Hertfordshire County Council

Representation Summary:

Until details of the phasing, house type and tenure are known HCC cannot calculate the yield and peak demand that will arise from the development to be able to confirm when the primary schools would need to be provided.

Full text:

The representations made on behalf of Hertfordshire County Council Property (Development Services) are given in the attached document.

Comment

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 806

Received: 27/09/2016

Respondent: Hertfordshire County Council

Representation Summary:

Any new school will need to incorporate a nursery class and pre-school provision
on site to meet the additional demand for free early education and childcare in this area.

Full text:

The representations made on behalf of Hertfordshire County Council Property (Development Services) are given in the attached document.

Comment

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 807

Received: 27/09/2016

Respondent: Mr Tim Bracey

Representation Summary:

The traffic access impacts of the a development comprising 2777 residential units does not make sense. There is significant congestion on the roads.

Full text:

i)there is NO recognition of the Croxley tube link to Watford Junc.Despite the doc dated Aug 16 when the construction is underway!Thus all the info on section 1.2 is flawed.ii)having 2777 residential units does not make sense when looking at access to the site for vehicles.There appears to be no new roads to the site, so having 4k vehicles going to/from from the site for the residents, even if there is adequate parking, will not work with the current roads in the area.The roads(e.g. St Albans Rd)are ALREADY congested,so adding traffic,+ all the station parking &business road transport,will not work.

Object

Watford Junction Draft Development Brief 2016

Representation ID: 837

Received: 28/09/2016

Respondent: London Concrete Ltd

Agent: Firstplan Ltd

Representation Summary:

Page 6, 1.1 Introduction, Planning Policy and Status - Fails to make reference to requirements in the Minerals Local Plan forming part of the Development Plan. Draft development brief - must include reference to this.

Full text:


LOCAL PLAN PART 2 - SITE ALLOCATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT POLICIES PUBLICATION 2016
The following objection is made on behalf of London Concrete Ltd and Aggregate Industries Ltd (AI) the operators of the safeguarded rail aggregates depot and associated facilities at Orphanage Road. The objection should be read in conjunction with representations made on the draft Watford Junction Development Brief currently also subject to consultation.
For the avoidance of doubt it is confirmed that London Concrete and AI continue to rely fully on the objections made on their behalf in respect of the First Consultation - Watford Local Plan DPD, Part 2 - Site Allocations Consultation (as submitted December 2013), Development Management Policies - First Consultation (as submitted December 2013) and the Local Plan Part 2 - Second Consultation (as submitted February 2015). The objections made to those documents have not been reflected in either the latest Local Plan consultation stage nor in the draft Watford Junction Development Brief consultation document.
SPA2 Watford Junction (includes a safeguarded rail aggregates depot at Orphanage Road). (Policy Boundary)
In the context of Local Plan Part 2 - SPA2 Watford Junction, whilst it is acknowledged that references are now included to the effect that any proposals should take account of the safeguarded facilities, the SPA2 Watford Junction plan showing the proposed extent of the SPA2 area still fails to identify the extent of the rail aggregates depot and associated facilities.
Our previous representations have consistently underscored the fact that the safeguarded area needs to be specifically detailed. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) expressly requires local planning authorities in preparing Local Plans to safeguard existing rail heads and associated storage and handling facilities for the bulk transport by rail of mineral and to safeguard existing concrete batching facilities [Pg33, Para 143, bullet point 4]. Without specifically identifying the extent of the safeguarded area the safeguarding is undermined and does not provide a clear policy based framework for considering development proposals coming forward in the surrounding area. In response to earlier submissions made in this context - the Summary of Comments Received and Initial Officer Response indicated that
"WBC - we agree it would be useful to show the safeguarded concrete batching area and will consider the best way of showing this (and other safeguarded sites in the borough) as we further develop maps for the plan, and appreciate the provision of a detailed plan showing this area and the shared access to the site. We consider that the inclusion of the Option B site should help to provide additional masterplan/design flexibility in the vicinity of the concrete batching plant given the development constraints the plant imposes on the area".

The safeguarded area should be identified now in the Special Policy Area boundary - to appropriately reflect the requirements of the Core Strategy, Minerals Plan and to ensure conformity with requirements in the NPPF, and not least of all so the document can be found 'sound'. The specific identification of the safeguarded site is justified on the basis that the safeguarded area is an existing operational site as opposed to the future development of the wider SPA2 area - where appropriate uses and broad scale of development are being identified to guide future development in the Policy Area Boundary. The proper identification of the safeguarded site will be critical in informing how that development is taken forward in the surrounding area.
The SPA2 area has been expanded to include additional land to the east of the rail aggregates depot site. As per our previous consultation responses we continue to object to this on the grounds that the Inclusion of additional land into the SPA2 Policy area, which is currently subject to an employment designation, and is located adjacent to the safeguarded site is not appropriate and could undermine the safeguarding of the area. As detailed in objection to the draft Development Brief - this issue could be overcome if the Development Brief ensures that noise-sensitive uses cannot be introduced with this area which could prejudice the future operation of the safeguarded area.
Alterations required
* Full extent of rail aggregates depot and associated facilities (including access road) to be marked on to the SPA2 Watford Junction Boundary Plan.

* The SPA2 Boundary Map reference which currently reads : "SPA2 Watford Junction (includes a safeguarded rail aggregates depot at Orphanage Road") should be amended as follows to ensure it accords with the provisions of adopted Policy SPA2 (Core Strategy)

"SPA2 Watford Junction (includes a safeguarded rail aggregates depot and associated facilities at Orphanage Road)."

Appendix I - Site Schedules
SPA2 - Watford Junction.
The following objection should be read in conjunction to the objections made to Policy SPA2 (boundary plan) at Chapter 2 of the draft Local Plan and to the draft Watford Junction Development Brief. As detailed in those responses the full extent of the safeguarded area should be expressly detailed both within Local Plan Part 2 and within the Development Brief.
The Development Considerations listed at Appendix 1 with regard to SPA2 - Watford Junction are objected to as not being in conformity with Adopted Core Strategy Policy SPA 2, nor with provisions in the Minerals Plan and the NPPF. The following amendments are required to ensure the draft Plan is sound.
"Development Considerations
Development proposals will need to be in line with the emerging Watford Junction Masterplan Development Brief and the SPA Objectives and requirements of Policy SPA2 in the Core Strategy.
The waste Orphanage Road rail and aggregates depot and associated facilities (concrete batching plant) within the SPA is safeguarded as identified in Core Strategy Policy SPA2 and Hertfordshire County Council's Minerals Plan. This will need to be retained, or a comparable facility provided on site, which will also be subject to safeguarding, or a new comparable facility provided in the local area.
If the rail aggregate depot and associated facilities are retained in their current location, or relocated within the SPA2 area, the development proposals should not allow for the introduction of noise sensitive uses in proximity to the safeguarded area. Any new development in the vicinity of the safeguarded area should be planned, laid out and designed with appropriate mitigation to ensure they do not prejudice the existing or future use of the safeguarded site and operations.
Greater pedestrian connectivity between the SPA area and the town centre is required as well as .....
Design and development along boundaries.....
Dependent on proposals, an archaeological....
An investigation into waste water....."

WATFORD JUNCTION - DRAFT DEVELOPMENT BRIEF
This objection should be read in conjunction with the objections made to the Watford Local Plan Part 2 on behalf the London Concrete and Aggregate Industries the operators of the rail aggregates depot at Orphanage Road.
The Watford Junction Draft Development Brief is objected to on the basis that it does not accord with the requirements of Adopted Policy SPA2, Watford Junction, in the Watford Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) Adopted 2013. Policy SPA2 expressly requires that:
"The development scheme will be required to safeguard the existing Orphanage Way rail and aggregates depot and associated facilities, or re-provide a comparable facility on site which will also be subject to safeguarding, or ensure re-provision of a comparable facility within the local area, via liaison with Hertfordshire County Council and the operator. The redevelopment scheme shall be required to be sensitive to and respond to the operating parameters of the facility."
The requirement to safeguard the rail aggregates depot and associated facilities, and this specific policy wording, was secured at EIP as result of objections raised at that time by the operator of the rail and aggregates depot site (namely London Concrete and Aggregate Industries). The safeguarding secured applies to the rail head and aggregates depot and associated facilities, by which is meant the on-site concrete batching plant (CBP). The safeguarding secured within Adopted Policy SPA2 was justified at the time, and continues to be justified and underpinned, by the requirements to safeguard such sites and facilities in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Specifically, the NPPF requires local planning authorities in preparing Local Plans to safeguard existing rail heads and associated storage and handling facilities for the bulk transport by rail of mineral and to safeguard existing concrete batching facilities [Pg33, Para 143, bullet point 4].
The safeguarding of the Orphanage Road rail and aggregates site, as required by national policy, has been identified within the Hertfordshire Minerals Policy 10: Railheads and Wharves in the County Councils Minerals Local Plan (2002-2016) Adopted 2007. It is highlighted that Hertfordshire County Council made representations including most recently to the Watford Local Plan Part 2 - Second Consultation (representations letter dated 3 February 2016) which highlight the protection which should be afforded to the current facilities at Orphanage Road.
The Minerals Plan together with the Adopted Core Strategy currently comprise the key development plan documents relevant to the consideration of this site. They form the policy context within which the Development Brief must be drafted.
In the context of the safeguarding policies which apply (Adopted Core Strategy Policy SPA2 and Minerals Policy 10) it is reiterated that the operator of the site was very clear when the Core Strategy was under consideration at the EIP that due to the scarcity of rail served sites such as that at Orphanage Road that they did not consider there would be any reasonable possibility that an alternative site could be found that would be suitable to accommodate them. This remains the case. Moreover to date there has been no indication from the LPA or prospective developer as to where the existing facilities could be relocated to or by what mechanism that might be achieved, nor the practicalities or costs of achieving such a relocation. Notwithstanding this, Policy SPA2 is clear that the development proposals for SPA2 need to as a starting point safeguard the existing Orphanage Road rail and aggregates depot and associated facilities, or re-provide a comparable facility on-site also subject to safeguarding, or ensure re-provision within the local area via liaison with Hertfordshire County Council and the operator. The draft Development Brief fails to replicate this policy approach. Its starting point, at Page 34, Section 3.4 Development Sites - Station Quarter East, Land Use and Quantum, bullet point 2, in fact fails to make any reference to the first two parts of Adopted Policy SPA2 in this context, and makes reference only to relocation within the local area.
London Concrete and Aggregate Industries are clear that they will resist any attempt to relocate their facility - due to the impact in would have on their operation and business and the fact that they are clear that there is no suitable site in the "local" area which could provide the same rail and road access that currently supports their operations.
The approach of the draft Development Brief, with regard to Station Quarter East development site (within which the London Concrete/AI facility is located) is flawed, not consistent with Adopted Policy in the Core Strategy, not consistent with Policy in the Minerals Plan and not consistent with NPPF requirements.
On this basis the draft Development Brief is not 'sound' and is objected to on the following specific points:
Specific objections/comments draft Development Brief -
Page 6, 1.1 Introduction, Planning Policy and Status - Fails to make reference to requirements in the Minerals Local Plan forming part of the Development Plan. Draft development brief - must include reference to this.
Pg 10, 2.1 Baseline Analysis, under heading of Weaknesses, bullet point 6, makes reference to "Lack of clarity around the safeguarding of lands for future infrastructure requirements and aggregates handling." The policy position is perfectly clear and set out in Adopted Policy SPA2 in terms of first safeguarding of the facility in-situ, re-provision and safeguarding on site, or re-provision in the local area. The site operator has equally been clear in terms of the likelihood of an alternative suitable site being available, which is considered to be extremely limited. It should be very clear that the likelihood is that the facility will remain on site and will need to be fully safeguarded. This will require careful consideration to be given to the uses and design of development in the vicinity of the safeguarded site.
Page 13, 2.13 Site Wide Principles: Built Environment - under the heading Land Use and Activity - draft Development Brief fails to make any reference to likelihood of the retention of the safeguarded rail and aggregates depot or its re-provision on site. Important that it does so at an early stage - to provide a coherent and realistic framework for the wider development.
Pg 15, 2.4 Illustrative Masterplan - the illustrative masterplan has no regard to the requirements of Adopted Policy SPA2 and the requirement to safeguard the existing Orphanage Road facilities or re-provide onsite. Given the fact that the operator has consistently advised that there is extremely limited potential that they could be relocated in the local area -the illustrative masterplan is fundamentally flawed in that it currently shows no provision for the safeguarded uses and operations and fails to appropriately guide development in this part of the SPA2 policy area.
As a starting point the illustrative masterplan must show the retention of the safeguarded uses including access to the highway network - to appropriately guide development in the context of the adopted SPA2 policy.
Pg 18, 2.5 Land Uses - In context of requirements in adopted Policy SPA2 fails to make any reference to the retained and safeguarded rail and aggregates depot and associated facilities - in the list of land uses.
In addition to showing the retained area to accord with the principles of safeguarding - it is not considered appropriate to introduce noise sensitive uses in the adjoining area which could prejudice the future operation of the safeguarded area. Adjoining land uses are currently employment uses - objections have previously been maintained to the inclusion of those employment areas within the SPA2 area for just this reason.
Land use plan should show retained safeguarded area including appropriate access provision and be clear in its guidance in terms of appropriate surrounding land uses.
Pg 32, 3.3 Development Sites: Station Quarter West - in the context of Land Use and Quantum as this area of land is located directly opposite the existing Orphanage Road facility - land uses indicated here consisting primarily of office, retail and leisure are supported. However, any introduction of residential or other noise-sensitive uses would be resisted as they would be located in close proximity to the aggregates unloading area and associated rail sidings and would have the potential to prejudice the safeguarded area.
Pg 34, 3.4 Development Sites: Station Quarter East - as detailed above and in the context of objections to the current Local Plan consultation, bullet point 3 fails entirely to accord with the clear principles of safeguarding established in Adopted Policy SPA2. This forms the main basis for the objection to the draft Development Brief which is fundamentally flawed in failing to allow for any option other than the relocation of the rail and aggregates depot in the local area. The starting point of the Policy requires consideration of retention of the safeguarded area. In not considering that as a development option the Development Brief will fail to provide appropriate guidance in terms of development coming forward in this part of the SPA2 area. The Brief must account for the potential that it is highly unlikely that a suitable alternative location will be found to accommodate the safeguarded operations and that facility will need to be retained and appropriately safeguarded on site. That safeguarding will need to ensure that new land uses introduced around the retained area should not prejudice the existing and future operation of the site including its access to the highway network.
Conclusion
It is noted that the site operator has had significant experience in protecting and safeguarding sites such as this at a number of its location. This has been achieved by a variety of means including: through local plan representations; by objecting to application proposals which could prejudice their operations; by successfully resisting CPO's and by recourse to legal action including judicial review. The operator is clear on the importance of this site as a rail served freight facility safeguarded at every level of policy. A robust case was made at the Core Strategy EIP which secured the basis on which future development documents including the Local Plan Part 2 and the Watford Junction Development Brief should be progressed. The operator has made repeated representations to the Local Plan process and it is extremely disappointing that this is not reflected in the latest round of consultation and the formulation of the draft Development Brief. The Operator was consulted at a very late stage on the draft Development Brief - just a few weeks before formal consultation commenced.