Hello guest, if you read this it means you are not registered. Click here to register in a few simple steps, you will enjoy all features of our Forum.

Our community forum is now open, a warm welcome to all Richings Park residents. Please register in order to be able to post and start new threads (March 23, 2015)


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Formal petition deposited at the House of Commons
#1

.docx   RPRA petition final.docx (Size: 30.44 KB / Downloads: 6)
.docx   RPRA petition final.docx (Size: 30.44 KB / Downloads: 6) On Thursday 13th August I went to the House of Commons to formally deposit the petition from the Residents' Association objecting to the HS2/Heathrow Express depot and railway sidings being proposed to be built alongside Hollow Hill Lane.  This will have a huge impact on our areaThe 500 additional HGVs per day during construction on our roads, the 24 hour working, the noise, air and light pollution that we will suffer are all totally unacceptable and we will do our utmost to ensure that if we do have this depot foisted upon us we get a relief road built.  A number of other groups have also petitioned and we have co-ordinated our documents so that we are all making the same objections and requests for a relief road.  We will now wait to be called to present our case to the Select Committee of the House of Commons.
Reply
#2
Well done Wendy. Thank you for doing this on our behalf.
Reply
#3
The Select Committee report on HS2 has now been published (link here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldhs2/83/83.pdf) - their response to the petition by the Richings Park Residents Association is copied below (page 25 of report).

Iver Parish Council, Ivers Community Group and Richings Park Residents’ Association (petition nos. 639, 702 and 666)

89. The petitioners drew attention to the impact of construction traffic on Iver.  As a result of the construction of HS2 in Old Oak Common, the Heathrow Express depot has to be moved to Langley, near Slough.

90. As it was, the petitioners argued, the area was already under considerable strain on account of many other proposed infrastructure projects in the locality, for example, the construction of Crossrail and Western Rail access to Heathrow. HS2 was set to bring 500 HGVs a day onto the local roads, adding to the existing congestion, and compounding concerns about noise, pollution and safety. Other communities, the petitioners argued, had received dedicated funding on account of the special effects that the railway would
have on them: Calvert,18 Great Missenden (£500,000) and Slough (£6.25million). The petitioners requested that Iver also receive dedicated funding to offset the impact of the project.

91. The promoter conceded that HS2 would, for the period of construction of the depot, add significant numbers of HGVs throughout the day to existing traffic flows. Construction impacts, however, whilst significant, would only last for around a year, and would cease when the depot had been constructed.  There was no case for Iver to receive a specific funding allocation. Instead, the community had the opportunity to bid for funding under the community and environment fund and the business fund, and the recently introduced
road safety fund.

92. We have found the principal point raised by these petitioners difficult, not least because comparisons with other locations on the route are both invidious and in a sense irrelevant—each case needs to be determined on its own merits. It does seem to us, however, that Iver is a special case and we invite the promoter to re-consider whether the provision of a specific allocation might be appropriate.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)