NOT TO BE PRINTED_Draft Final TAAP comments duly

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Sustrans Peterborough 13 13.03 Disagree Sustrans Peterborough 13 13.06 Agree Previous comment should have been to disagree: The bus is extremely unlikely to be the mode with the greatest potential as an alternative to the private car in Thetford. The research carried out in Peterborough for the Sustainable Travel Demonstration Town project Noted. The modal split has been developed in liaison with the showed that under existing conditions in the City 42% of existing car respective transport authorities. This may be technically correct trips were in principle replaceable by cycle, 16% by public transport based on other locations, however no two places are alike. We and 13% by foot. Sustrans is not aware of any location where public know that bus services in Thetford are currently not as good as transport has greater potential than cycling, although Sustrans they might be, due to the layout of the town and the circuitous certainly encourages public transport use instead of private car. nature of the routes. Therefore, we are comfortable with Sustrans could certainly envisage the situation where in excess of paragraph 13.3 which envisages buses as having the greatest 25% of trips by Thetford residents are by bike. This would seem potential in Thetford, particularly as the layout of the growth unlikely with regards to bus given the size and layout of the town.. could be designed to enable good direct bus services. Consider if re-wording is necessary. It is essential that all routes are convenient for the modes that are being encouraged. Support noted. Emphasise this point in bus and walking and cycling policies. S Lenane Thetford 13 13.12 Agree I agree Support noted. No further action. Mr Stephen Faulkner Mr Stephen Faulkner Norfolk County Council Norwich 13 13.13 Comment Norfolk County Council Norwich 13 13.14 Comment Paragraph 13.13 The meaning of this sentence is unclear. However, as with the Policy TH9 it is important to be realistic in terms of what can be funded by development and what expectation there is from the public purse. Text should refer to urban extension. But it is an aim to of the TAAP to provide good facilities for the existing town, which in part has to be the responsibility of agencies. Change to Thetford Urban Extension. it is an aim to of the TAAP to provide good facilities for the existing town, which in part has to be the responsibility of agencies. Bus infra in urban extension will have real time Paragraph 13.14 It is important to be realistic in terms of what can be information as standard. Other locations such as bus funded by development and what expectation there is from the public interchange likely to have it too. The network elsewhere in the purse. own can be upgraded and fit into system. No further action. S Lenane Thetford 13 13.14 Agree Support noted. No further action. Document to be checked for consistency re Thetford Urban Mr Paul Leeming Carter Jonas Harrogate 13 13.17 Comment Wording within the justification should not refer to "Thetford North". Agree. Extension. Mr Stephen Faulkner Norfolk County Council Norwich 13 13.21 Comment S Lenane Thetford 13 13.28 Comment Sustrans Peterborough 13 13.28 Disagree Paragraph 13.21 - It is not clear if "bypass routes into and out of" means free flow left turn lanes. Therefore further clarification is needed in this paragraph; Noted. Clarify this section. All these proposals for altering the roads just prove that Thetford is too small for the proposed development. Many roads will not be able to be altered, resulting in gridlock. We do not accept that modelling based on existing travel patterns is appropriate for modelling future traffic flows in 2026 - the world in 2026 will be very different to now and oil consumption will have to have reduced drastically. People will still need to travel within Thetford to access goods and services, but the modes of travel that they choose are likely to be very different. The modelling of the future transport needs should be based on a vision of future modal splits that fits with the vision of a sustainable, healthy town. This might be 20% trips by public transport, 30% trips by bicycle, 30% trips by foot and 20% by car. The road network needs to be designed on the basis of what the vision is for the future rather than extrapolating existing unsustainable patterns. It is worth noting that by 2026, as Thetford is now, junctions within and around Thetford will experience great issues, even without the growth. Transport work to support the growth and regeneration of Thetford has been informed by both Norfolk County Council and the Highways Agency and proves that a transport package of some highway enhancements as well as attaining modal shift are deliverable. No further action. Noted. TAAP evidence is based on challenging modal shift, but is at a level that NCC and HA agree. There is a lot in the TAAP that promotes modal shift. BDC would welcome proposals to attain greater modal shift. No further action.
Charlotte Poel Thetford 13 Policy TH 10 Disagree Chisman Gary Highways Agency Bedford 13 Policy TH 10 Agree Melinda Raker By email 13 Policy TH 10 Comment Mr Anthony Poulter Brettenham and Kilverstone Parish Council Thetford 13 Policy TH 10 Comment Why? Do up the present station, use all the buildings and provide better facilities i.e. coffee bar, newsagents etc. This policy is thinking ahead and not a definite. Making sure ability to do this in future not compromised. Safe guarding piece of land to accommodate this idea. Priority remains improving existing station. Not short to medium term – a longer term idea. This idea is at the concept stage. A new station would be Developer funded. The concept requires greater detail investigation and discussion with network rail and operators. An Initial assessment shows that there is not a big impact on train times, could be made up on the way. Whilst residents may not go to Norwich or Cambridge on daily basis, such an idea might Expand supporting text about help that commute for other journeys. temporary type of development. It is recognised that a new railway station within the SUE could contribute to increasing the sustainability of the SUE. If frequent and attractive services are provided towards Norwich and Ely/Cambridge, this could encourage people to travel by train instead of the car via the A11. It is recognised that further analysis is required of the physical feasibility of a new railway station, its operating implications and levels of demand. The proposed safeguarding of land for a new station within the SUE is considered sensible. The Highways Agency recognises that it may not be feasible to provide a new station within the plan period and further consultation with the DfT, Network Rail and train operators is required. Support noted. No further action. With the economic climate where it is, surely it is unlikely that public money will be spent on a new railway station. Why not have a good park and ride with green electric or gas buses to run every few minutes into the town centre. If the funding for a new station comes from the developers of the houses in order to maximise spread of new buildings, it should be made clear to the public. Do we really need a new/additional railway station/halt - we should be concentrating on improving facilities, access and services for the present one; we should also have a joined up transport policy/strategy. Mr Digby Smith Thetford 13 Policy TH 10 Comment What will it cost? Who will pay for this? It will extend journey times. Mr DM Hall Thetford 13 Policy TH 10 Disagree This is a pipe dream. Mr E Leeder Thetford 13 Policy TH 10 Agree Good idea. Support noted. No further action. Mr Ed Chambers Thetford Town Council THETFORD 13 Policy TH 10 Agree Approved Support noted. No further action. Mr John Saunders Peterborough-Ely- Norwich Rail Users By email 13 Policy TH 10 Comment Mr Jon Ford Thetford 13 Policy TH 10 Comment Mr KM Harvey Thetford 13 Policy TH 10 Comment Mr P Dunnett Thetford 13 Policy TH 10 Disagree Mr R Ward Thetford 13 Policy TH 10 Comment Mr Stephen Faulkner Norfolk County Council Norwich 13 Policy TH 10 Comment Any proposal for a new station would need very thorough professional evaluation of its costs, benefits and practicality. How many passengers use the existing railway station per month? Is it worth the cost of a new and additional station? I doubt it. new railway station unlikely to be necessary. Existing one not overused. Unlikely that rail authorities would agree to fund this. In reality, there is no chance that Network Rail would construct a second station in a town the size of Thetford even after this expansion, barely a mile from the existing station. Demand would have to be off the Richter scale to achieve this flippant piece of planning! Cannot see this as a possibility. This takes away the credibility of the whole scheme. Policy TH10 New train station - The caveat in the second paragraph is not required. It would be better to simply say that any prejudicial development will not be permitted; This policy is thinking ahead and not a definite. Making sure ability to do this in future not compromised. Safe guarding piece Expand supporting text about of land to accommodate this idea. Priority remains improving temporary type of development. existing station. Not short to medium term – a longer term idea. This idea is at the concept stage. A new station would be Developer funded. The concept requires greater detail Expand supporting text about investigation and discussion with network rail and operators. An temporary type of development. Initial assessment shows that there is not a big impact on train Expand supporting text about times, could be made up on the way. Whilst residents may not temporary type of development. go to Norwich or Cambridge on daily basis, such an idea might Expand supporting text about help that commute for other journeys. temporary type of development. This policy is a proactive one and is not a definite commitment that a station will be built. The Plan aims to make sure that the ability to deliver this proposal in future not compromised. Whilst safeguarding the land to accommodate this idea, the priority remains improving the existing railway station. A new station would be developer funded. The concept requires greater detailed investigation and discussion with Network Rail and operators. An Initial assessment shows that there is not a big impact on train times arising from an additional stop and as such overall journey times between Ely and Norwich will remain the same. Whilst residents may not go to Norwich or Cambridge on daily basis, such an idea might help that commute for other journeys for higher order services and facilities. This policy is a proactive one and is not a definite commitment that a station will be built. The Plan aims to make sure that the ability to deliver this proposal in future not compromised. Whilst safeguarding the land to accommodate this idea, the priority Expand supporting text about temporary type of development.
Page 1 and 2: Full Name Company / Organisation Po
Page 3 and 4: Mr Tom Gilbert- Wooldridge English
Page 5 and 6: Mr Simon Malone Thetford 4 4.21 Com
Page 7 and 8: Ian Poole St Edmundsbury Borough Co
Page 9 and 10: Mrs Jenny Gladstone Norfolk Geodive
Page 11 and 12: Tony Poulter Brettenham and Kilvers
Page 13 and 14: Mr Paul Leeming Carter Jonas Harrog
Page 15 and 16: Mr. neil Thetford healthy blackshaw
Page 17 and 18: Mr A M Cox Thetford 11 Map 11.1 Com
Page 19 and 20: Mr Anthony Poulter Mr Ed Chambers B
Page 23 and 24: Mr Stuart Wilson Thetford Society T
Page 25: Mr Paul Leeming Carter Jonas Harrog
Page 29 and 30: C A Brooks Thetford 13 Policy TH 11
Page 31 and 32: Chisman Gary Highways Agency Bedfor
Page 33 and 34: Chisman Gary Highways Agency Bedfor
Page 37 and 38: Velda Luckhurst Thetford 13 Policy
Page 39 and 40: E Friend Thetford 13 Policy TH 8 Ag
Page 41 and 42: Katie Benford Planning Potential Lt
Page 43 and 44: P Dunnett 19 Admirals Way Thetford
Page 45 and 46: Mr Stuart Wilson Thetford 14 Policy
Page 47 and 48: Katie Benford Katie Benford Plannin
Page 49 and 50: Mr Anthony Poulter Mr Stephen Faulk
Page 53 and 54: Mr Stephen Faulkner Mr Stephen Faul
Page 55 and 56: Mr P Dunnett Thetford 16 Policy TH
Page 57 and 58: Mr. neil blackshaw Thetford healthy
Page 61 and 62: Melinda Raker By email 18 Policy TH
Page 63 and 64: Mr John Kitson Thetford 18 Policy T
Page 69 and 70: Mrs L Brightman Thetford 18 Policy
Page 71 and 72: Val Moore By email 18 Policy TH 21
Page 73 and 74: S Lenane Thetford Mr Anthony Lewis
Page 75 and 76: Mr Ed Chambers Thetford Town Counci
Page 77 and 78:
Mr Paul Leeming Carter Jonas Harrog
Page 79 and 80:
E Friend Thetford 19 Policy TH 25 D
Page 81 and 82:
Mr and Mrs Baker Mr and Mrs M Moor
Page 83 and 84:
Mr E Leeder Thetford 19 Policy TH 2
Page 85 and 86:
Mr P King Thetford 19 Policy TH 25
Page 87 and 88:
Mrs E McGuire Thetford 19 Policy TH
Page 89 and 90:
Mrs L Holmes Thetford 19 Policy TH
Page 91 and 92:
S Lenane Thetford 19 Policy TH 25 D
Page 93 and 94:
Mr Stuart Wilson Thetford 19 Policy
Page 95 and 96:
Mr Paul Leeming Carter Jonas Harrog
Page 97 and 98:
D Tricker D Tricker D Tricker D Tri
Page 99 and 100:
Chisman Gary Highways Agency Bedfor
Page 101 and 102:
This is another vague and wishy was
Page 103 and 104:
Mrs K Turner Thetford 22 Policy TH
Page 105 and 106:
Melinda Raker By email 24 Policy TH
Page 107 and 108:
The WW2 pillbox at the entrance to
Page 109 and 110:
Mr. neil blackshaw Mr. neil blacksh
Page 111 and 112:
Mr. g Brighton Thetford 29 Policy T
Page 113 and 114:
P Dunnett 19 Admirals Way Thetford
Page 115 and 116:
Mr Stephen Faulkner Mr Neil Stott N
Page 117:
Tony Poulter Brettenham and Kilvers
show all

NOT TO BE PRINTED_Draft Final TAAP comments duly

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?