ITEM 11

S

OFFICER REPORT TO CABINET

TRANSPORT and WORKS ACT 1992 THE HEATHROW AIRTRACK ORDER

29 September 2009

KEY ISSUE/DECISION: The Cabinet is asked to consider how it should respond to an application by Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL, a subsidiary of BAA Limited) for Transport and Works Act 1992 powers to build the Heathrow Airtrack rail scheme. BUSINESS CASE: What is the problem we are trying to address/what are we trying to achieve? 1 Heathrow Airtrack is a proposal to provide a new rail link to Heathrow Airport

Terminal 5 from various stations across the rail network currently covered by South West Trains services, via Staines, a new ‘chord’ and a new rail line across Stanwell Moor.

2 BAA/HAL, as scheme promoters, have now submitted their Transport and

Works Act (TWA) 1992 Order to the Secretary of State for Transport seeking powers to construct the new rail lines and provide the Airtrack services. Interested parties have a limited period in which to register objections to the proposals.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 3 The proposed Heathrow Airtrack scheme links London (Waterloo) to

Heathrow T5, Guildford/Woking to Heathrow T5 and Reading to T5 passing through the districts of Guildford, Woking, Runnymede (on existing rail lines) and Spelthorne (both on existing and new rail lines).

4 The proposed Heathrow Airtrack scheme would provide a new rail link to

Heathrow Airport Terminal 5 via Staines. It would complement the existing Heathrow Express service from Paddington to Terminal 5 by providing direct services to and from London Waterloo, Reading and Woking/ Guildford. In addition BAA/HAL propose to extend the Heathrow Express to Staines.

Item 11

2

Source: BAA Heathrow Airtrack Consultation Brochure 2, October 2008

5 BAA/HAL submitted their TWA application for this scheme on 24 July 2009, and now requires the County Council’s formal response to the proposals. If the Government approves the scheme, construction could start towards the end of 2010 and be operational in 2014. The scheme could not realistically be operational in time for the 2012 Olympic games.

6 In spring 2008, BAA/HAL carried out a first round of consultation. This

focused on the new rail infrastructure required by the scheme, including the line across Stanwell Moor, a new rail chord in Staines and a proposal for a new station at Staines High Street. A further ‘round’ of consultation was undertaken during the autumn of 2008 and comments provided by the County Council were presented to BAA prior to the submission of the TWA. During and since these consultations, the County Council has held frequent meetings with interested parties under the auspices of the Transport for Surrey Partnership.

BENEFITS OF HEATHROW AIRTRACK 7 Heathrow is the world’s busiest international airport, handling around 68

million passenger journeys per year. Of the 70,000 employees, nearly half come from five of the surrounding boroughs including Spelthorne.

8 Currently, there is no direct rail link to Heathrow from the south and southwest. Heathrow Airtrack should address this by providing direct services from London (Waterloo), Guildford/Woking and Reading and the wider hinterland such as improved links via Heathrow Express from Staines to London Paddington.

9 According to the Civil Aviation Authority passenger survey and BAA staff surveys, approximately 22% of Heathrow’s passengers and 50% of its staff are anticipated to use the new services. Heathrow Airtrack is intended to provide frequent, convenient public transport access to the major transport

Item 11

3

and employment hub at Heathrow. This would reduce local road congestion and improve access for thousands of people who work or want to work at Heathrow and the surrounding area.

10 Heathrow Airtrack will also link Heathrow to Gatwick Airport (via Guildford or Clapham Junction), Portsmouth / Isle of Wight (via Guildford), the South West (Via Woking) and Midlands /Wales (via Reading). See SW Trains network map overleaf.

11 The TWA makes a number of conclusions about the economic benefits of Heathrow Airtrack. It should be noted that this was based on a slightly different scheme, which included the High Street (Staines) station (no longer part of the proposal).

12 The main conclusions are summarised as follows:

• Economic Output for Spelthorne is predicted to increase by about £5.2 million per year by 2031. – (TWA paragraph 16.6.18)

• The attractiveness of Spelthorne for business is predicted to increase and “may lead to benefits from the relocation of some 400 jobs”. – (TWA paragraph 16.6.18)

• Productivity gains in Surrey, including Spelthorne, would total £21 million per annum as a result of Airtrack. – (TWA paragraph 16.6.19).

• Productivity gain per worker is predicted to increase by 2031 in the following Surrey areas as follows: Spelthorne £149 per worker, Runnymede £96.50 per worker, Woking £82.60 per worker and Guildford £59 per worker.

• Indirect and induced benefits to Spelthorne are projected at 350-1000 jobs (2031) – (TWA paragraph 16.6.22).

Item 11

4

Item 11

5

COUNTY COUNCIL POSITION 13 At its meeting on 2 December 2008, the Executive resolved:

“(1) That the principle of the Airtrack project continue to be supported as having the potential to improve significantly surface access to Heathrow Airport from South London and Surrey, with consequent major social and economic benefits.

(2) That the justifiably strong concerns, that Airtrack as currently envisaged, will seriously affect the amenities of many local residents and disadvantage local businesses and traders, be recognised.

Particular issues are:

a. The scheme will cause substantial increases in down-time for several level crossings, most notably four crossings in the Egham area. This will increase road journey times and traffic congestion and add to community fragmentation. This could in turn discourage residents from using local trading outlets and generally inhibit business activity in the areas affected.

b. A potential problem with capacity at Chertsey railway station.

c. Reduced Staines town centre parking opportunities caused by the 'Staines Chord'.

(3) That BAA, in conjunction with Surrey County Council and other partners, be urged to address these and other concerns without delay to arrive at area-wide solutions to significantly reduce or eliminate the problems that have been raised. These are likely to require modifications to existing road and rail networks and structures, particularly in the area of the Egham level crossings, and will therefore need funding from the overall Airtrack budget.

(4) To conclude with regret that, if solutions cannot be found as in (3) above, then Airtrack in its present proposed form cannot be supported.

(5) That authority to make any minor amendments to these comments be delegated to the Interim Operations Director - Environment and Infrastructure, in consultation with the Executive Member for Transport.”

ANALYSIS 14 BAA/HAL has made a submission under the TWA 1992, which gives powers

to organisations to construct and operate railways and tram systems.

15 The County Council now has an opportunity to object to the Order as a whole or elements of the Order. However, this is not a consultation on the whole scheme. For example, BAA/HAL is not required under the Act to give operational details such as the fares structure for the new services. When the Order is considered at Public Inquiry (February 2010) the Inspector may

Item 11

6

choose to disregard objections on issues, which do not fall within the scope of the Act.

16 Responses are required by 18 September 2009, although the County Council has obtained the agreement of the Department for Transport to submit a later response.

17 The intention is that those Local Committees, who have expressed an interest, and the Transportation Select Committee and the Environment and Economy Select Committee, will consider the County Council response. These committees will provide advice to the Cabinet meeting on 29 September, which will decide the County Council’s response. This response will also be reported for information to the Council meeting on 13 October 2009.

18 This report focuses on the TWA application submitted for the Heathrow Airtrack Order and NOT on the principle of an ‘Airtrack scheme’.

19 The TWA submitted indicates that the new railway would require certain new works within Surrey, all of which lie within the Borough of Spelthorne. In other parts of Surrey the proposed ‘Airtrack service’ would operate over the existing railway. These works are summarised on the following page.

Item 11

7

Scheme Description

• A new railway line linking the existing Reading line to the existing Windsor line, known as the Staines Chord. This chord will be approximately 516 metres in length, of which around 144 metres will be constructed on a viaduct crossing the existing Elmsleigh Surface Car Park. The remainder of this route will be on an embankment, with a new ramp access to the Elmsleigh multi-storey car park.

• A new railway line, approximately

436 metre in length, on the western side of Staines station but running parallel to the north side of Platform 1 to create a bay platform to enable trains to terminate at Staines. This new railway line affects the station buildings and existing footbridge, which will need to be replaced.

• A new railway line from a point

near Moor Lane in a north-easterly direction for approximately 4081 metres to Terminal 5 at Heathrow. Around 1551 metres at the northern end of this route is located within a tunnel of which approximately 330 metres is within Surrey (Spelthorne).

• Of the railway track (2860 metres)

within Surrey (Spelthorne), around 1080 metres will be constructed on a low level viaduct and the remainder on a low embankment on a gradual gradient towards the tunnel. This section of the proposed route crosses Common Land, public open space and an area designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The route also affects public rights of way in the area.

Item 11

8

CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 20 The works described above would be constructed over a four year period

between 2011 and 2014 with construction of the Staines chord and station between 2011-2012.

21 In order to carry out these works, temporary additional areas of land are required to construct the railway over its entire length; these additional areas will be returned to their original owners on completion of the works. These temporary areas include additional worksites that will also be required for construction purposes and these are located as follows:

• Bedfont Court for tunnelling work at northern end (Worksite 1).

• Just to the south of Horton Road, (Stanwell Moor), for tunnel works at the southern end and railway works across Stanwell and Staines Moor to the existing Windsor line (Worksite 2).

• Adjacent to Moor Lane (short term) to construct new footbridges over the Wraysbury River and existing Windsor line (Worksite 3).

• Within Staines station forecourt – for station, footbridge, work and the construction of the bay platform and rail line (Worksite 4).

• Within Elmsleigh Surface Car Park and South Street Car Park – to construct Staines Chord (Worksite 5).

• Within Elmsleigh and Tothill multi-storey car parks to construct the revised ramp entrance and ‘short term’ connection of the two car parks (Worksite 5).

22 The construction work will involve significant disruption to car parking at

Elmsleigh Surface Car park, as well as the Tothill and Elmsleigh Multi-storey car parks. Spelthorne Borough Council has major concerns over the loss of these spaces.

23 The works at the station and the construction of the chord will have a significant effect on pedestrian and cycle movements during the construction period and this will need to be carefully managed whilst the construction is undertaken. However, the proposals indicate an improved station path near to the existing railway station where the current path is ‘tight’.

CONSTRUCTION ACCESS 24 The five main worksites described above will require road access and the

planned routes are indicated below for each worksite. It should be noted that all of these work sites use roads within the Spelthorne area.

25 Worksites 3, 4 and 5 are of most concern, as these will use the town centre road network and sites 4 and 5 for a period of around 2 years.

26 The report indicates that 376,000 cubic metres of waste referred to as “non-landfill” waste, some will be surplus to requirements, as well as 49,000 cubic metres of contaminated landfill waste, all will need to be disposed of using the routes indicated below. However, the final waste disposal sites are not known at this time.

Item 11

9

Item 11

10

RAIL FREQUENCIES AND PATRONAGE 27 The following table indicates the planned Airtrack service as submitted in the

TWA Volume 6 Transport Assessment.

Airtrack Service: Journey Time Stations enroute London Waterloo – 2 trains per hour service with 10-carriage trains*

London to/from Heathrow 40 mins

Stops at Clapham Junction, Richmond, Twickenham, Feltham and Staines

Reading – 2 trains per hour service with 5-carriage trains*

Reading to/from Heathrow 44 mins.

Stops at Wokingham and Bracknell. This service will not stop at Staines.

Guildford – 1 train per hour service in the peak, and 2 trains per hour off peak all with 5-carriage trains*

Guildford to/from Heathrow 47 mins.

Stops at Woking and Chertsey. This service will not stop at Staines.

* Indicative pattern of services, train length and station stops. 28 In addition to the above, it is planned to run the Heathrow Express from/to

Heathrow T5/Staines 2 trains per hour in each direction. It is also proposed to operate Airtrack trains between approximately 0500 and 2400hr on all legs described above.

29 The present Rail Air Coach has a frequency of two per hour and duration of 25 minutes off peak to 45 minutes peak time from Woking rail station. The Airtrack service will provide a rail service to Heathrow T5 from Woking in approximately 40 minutes.

30 Overall passenger numbers for the Airtrack services are estimated in a number of documents provided as part of the TWA. There are some discrepancies in total number of passengers that the new services will generate. The County Council has asked for these to be clarified.

ROLLING STOCK AND ELECTRIFICATION 31 These trains will consist of 5 and 10 car sets. The London (Waterloo) service

is planned to run with 10 car sets and the Guildford/Woking and Reading services with 5 car sets. The existing Heathrow Express will be extended from T5 to terminate at Staines station (bay platform to be constructed).

32 All services will run on dual electrification, with the third rail system in

operation over the entire existing network and planned for most of the new line at the chord and across Staines Moor and some of Stanwell Moor. Overhead lines are planned to be installed from the T5 station to a point approximately 1km to the south of the tunnel entrance. Third rail will also run over part of this section to allow for a change over in power supply. It had been originally planned to operate overhead lines across all of Stanwell Moor and Staines Moor but this has been revised following objections raised during earlier consultations.

Item 11

11

ISSUES RELATING TO THE TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT APPLICATION 33 The TWA application has identified a number of issues that relate to Surrey

and the paragraphs below have identified these together with officer comments and recommendations. The proposed Airtrack Services affect the following Borough and Districts either directly or indirectly as shown below.

Directly affected Spelthorne and Runnymede (see 9.3 to 9.7) Indirectly affected • Guildford (see 9.8) • Woking (see 9.9) • Surrey Heath (see 9.10) • Waverley (see 9.11) The following sections of the report firstly consider the directly affected Boroughs of Spelthorne and Runnymede under five headings. • Highway Impacts • Staines Chord • Pedestrian Equestrian and Cycle Impacts • Environmental Impacts • Bus and Rail Stations

HIGHWAY IMPACTS Issue - Level Crossings with increased down time 34 The estimated impact on existing level crossings in the County are set out in

the TWA supporting document – Environmental Statement – Volume 2 Effects at Level Crossings. This document states that there will be increased congestion and delay resulting in a severe negative impact at the following level crossings (estimated level crossing downtimes are shown in brackets): • Thorpe Road, Staines (up to 37mins/hour, a 32% increase over existing) • Vicarage Road, Egham (up to 39 mins/hour, a 36% increase over

existing) and

• Station Road, Egham (up to 33.5 mins/hour, a 33% increase over existing)

The document also states that there will be a slight negative impact with no increased congestion or delay at Prune Hill, Rusham (up to 14.5 mins/hour an 8% increase over existing).

Level crossings with increased down times will lead to:

(a) increased road congestion and the impact on bus reliability; (b) reduced access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities;

and (c) child safety at level crossings – potential increased casualty risk as

level crossings become busier and pedestrians are more likely to have to wait at barriers.

Item 11

12

35 Comments – A first tranche of manual surveys has been undertaken by the

County Council to establish the baseline situation, but this remains a key concern. A survey report has been issued to the level crossings sub-group. Additional traffic modelling is being undertaken to look at the operation of the Thorpe Road level crossing in conjunction with Egham roundabout. The County Council has not undertaken any modelling work of the other level crossings.

36 A mitigation package of measures is currently being developed, but will

require Cabinet approval and it is expected that the ‘Airtrack scheme’ would fund these works.

37 Recommendation A mitigation package of measures currently being

identified could overcome these concerns subject to funding of the identified measures by the scheme promoters and subject to Cabinet approval. The scheme as proposed will cause unacceptable traffic problems at a number of level crossings. This will lead to traffic congestion, delays, poor bus reliability and access problems for the emergency services, especially the Thorpe Road, Vicarage Road and Station Road areas.

Item 11

13

Issue - On street parking around Staines station 38 Increase in parking around town, in particular Kingston Road, due to Airtrack. 39 Comments – Waiting restrictions are in place along much of Kingston Road,

but there are few restrictions along local residential streets. In June 2008 the County Council’s Local Committee for Spelthorne resolved that the parking situation in Staines be reviewed during summer / autumn 2009 with regard to controlled parking. The issue is resolvable but will require funding for the consultation and implementation of a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ).

40 Recommendation – the County Council is not satisfied that sufficient

mitigation measures have been planned to alleviate on-street parking in the area of Staines station and therefore requires funding towards consultation and implementation of a Controlled Parking Zone. Therefore, the County Council currently OBJECTS to the lack of mitigation measures.

Issue - Impact of traffic on Staines Town Centre 41 Comments - The impact of traffic in Staines town centre is of concern whilst

the construction of the planned railway is being undertaken and the TWA application modelling has not been presented adequately to enable a judgement to be made.

42 Recommendation - Staines Traffic –The impact of traffic in Staines town

centre is of concern whilst the construction of the planned railway is being undertaken and the TWA application modelling has not been presented adequately to enable a judgement to be made. The County Council is not satisfied with the details presented and therefore OBJECTS.

STAINES CHORD Issue and comments - Staines Chord adjacent to South Street 43 Pedestrian/cycle routes linking Station Path to town centre - In principle the

route is acceptable to the County Council/ Spelthorne Borough Council (SBC). Concerns regarding the visual impact and the routes’ feasibility remain. More detail is required especially on the design of the structures.

44 Impact on operating South St car park post construction - Subject to barriers

being set back far enough from public highway and the actual detail of the barriers being agreed with the County Council/ SBC. Detail to be agreed in detailed design stage.

45 Loss of bus bays needed for operation of Staines bus station - The County

Council believes this aspect of the design has now been satisfactorily addressed, with three bus bays now firmly in the design, however, there are concerns with the construction of the chord and the retaining walls affecting these bus bays.

46 Acceptability of structures relating to Surrey County Council Highways,

including structures near to the bus bays – the County Council will not maintain the structures associated with the proposed chord. The issue is the potential impact on the public highway during construction although it is inevitable that the construction of this scale of work will cause disruption. It is

Item 11

14

unlikely that the bus bays will be retained during construction of the chord retaining walls. Detailed discussions will be required with the appointed contractor.

47 There are serious concerns raised about the feasibility of linking of the

Elmsleigh and Tothill multi-story car parks and the timing of the schedule of works related to the ramp at the Elmsleigh Centre Car park and the surface car park where the Chord is to be constructed.

48 Recommendation – The County Council raises objections at this stage for

the following reasons. The schedule of work should be:- to put in the new ramp at the Elmsleigh Centre Car Park, then take the surface car park for construction work. These works cannot take place concurrently without producing major traffic problems in Staines. The feasibility of linking the Elmsleigh and Tothill multi-story car parks has not been proved and no proposal has been forthcoming from BAA/HAL. There are serious concerns about the feasibility of linking the two car parks.

Item 11

15

PEDESTRIAN, EQUESTRIAN AND CYCLE IMPACTS Issue - Rights of Way (Bridleway) 49 Retention of bridleway west of the new railway poses equestrian safety risks. 50 Comments - TWA Order proposes retention of Bridleway 50 (BW50) Staines

east of railway, the existing tarmac surface with a lack of screening will result in unsafe and unpleasant route for equestrians and cyclists between the M25 and the high speed rail line. The County Council would like BW50 retained as a footpath only, but the equestrian rights created to the east of the rail line, where there will be an earth or gravel surface and better screening from the rail line. The TWA Order proposes footpath rights only. Spelthorne Borough Council has reservations about the County Council's preferred option.

51 Recommendation - the proposed Bridleway 50 located between the planned

railway and the M25 is unsuitable because it would be an unattractive route for horse riders and cyclists. The County Council requests that a new Bridleway is created to the east of the planned railway line on an alignment agreed between BAA/HAL, SBC and the County Council.

Issue - Rights of Way (Stopping up / Diversion of Rights of Way) 52 Stopping up– the TWA Order proposes cul-de-sac paths leading to health

and safety issues at stopped up crossings. 53 Diversion - the TWA Order has omitted a section of path to be diverted /

created or stopped up. BAA/HAL have been informed about the omission. 54 Comments and Recommendation – BAA/HAL believe that the TWA order

can only stop up those parts of the highway directly affected by the scheme. Because of this, the TWA order does not stop up all redundant highway resulting in a number of potentially dangerous cul-de-sac routes, which would need to be tidied up. The proposed rights of way amendments should be amended, to correct errors in the application and to create sensible routes. The County Council should continue its dialogue with BAA and Spelthorne Borough Council to define an appropriate network of rights of way.

Issue - Staines – Stanwell Moor – Heathrow Cycle Route 55 There is a need for a direct cycle track to extend from Staines to Heathrow

Airport with a link to or via Stanwell Moor. 56 Comments and Recommendation – The current proposals use the existing

Bridleway 50 that would be ‘sandwiched’ between the M25 to the west and the planned railway to the east, of which 1080 metres will be on a low viaduct that could create a ‘tunnel’ affect and give the cyclist an impression of being ‘trapped’. This route does not meet four of the five Core Design Values for cycling, in safety, directness, attractiveness and comfort. The proposed Staines–Stanwell Moor–T5 cycle route is unsuitable, as it does not meet Core Design Values for cycling; in safety, directness, attractiveness and comfort where improvements could be made. The County Council should negotiate with BAA/HAL on a more appropriate route.

Item 11

16

Issue - Staines Station pedestrian/cycle link to town centre (South Street Car Park). 57 Impact on pedestrian/cycle link to town from station to South Street car park -

the route across the Elmsleigh Surface car park toward the south street Car Park (including access under the railway at the end of Matthews Lane) will be closed.

58 Comments and Recommendation – BAA/HAL state that works are entirely within Network Rail land, the pedestrian / cycle route will be closed throughout the construction period and will be widened at the ‘Station end’ on completion. The County Council regrets the inconvenience to pedestrians.

Item 11

17

ENVIRONMENTAL Issue - Impact on Site of Special Scientific Interest and Ecology 59 TWA plans impact on Site of Special Scientific Interest and Ecology within

Staines Moor. 60 Comments and Recommendation – Insufficient compensatory land

proposed for the loss of nationally important SSSI. The County Council OBJECTS to the SSSI and Ecology treatment proposals submitted in the TWA Environmental Statements due to insufficient compensatory land proposed for the loss of nationally important SSSI.

Issue - Landscaping 61 Landscape restoration will be needed following construction works. 62 Comments – Landscape fragmentation and degradation, both visually and

physically, are major issues. The assessment picks up on these aspects, but it does not explore how the area could be potentially enhanced in the context of its historical and landscape characteristics and how additional planting could address key visual issues. The landscape assessment was carried out in spring and late summer when trees and shrubs are in full leaf. Therefore any mitigation scenarios will reflect the planting during the same spring-late summer period and discount influences experienced in the winter period. It is considered that 15 years for mitigation planting to take effect is optimistic. The assumption made that there will be no permanent visual amenity effects, may be misleading. Airtrack has identified specific visual effects in their assessment that apply to the area in general terms, with or without the Airtrack development. It is not proposed that these wider visual effects will be mitigated ‘wholesale’ and from the information provided it is not entirely clear what visual effects Airtrack will seek to mitigate or where the location of mitigation planting or other measures will be.

63 In terms of Staines Moor, loss of vegetation cover and screening will have a

medium term impact, whilst awaiting the establishment of any replacement planting. This may be deemed unacceptable where impacts are evident for up to 15 years or more. It is not possible to respond to this point until full details are available. Mitigation effectiveness and timescales in relation to Moor Lane and Staines Moor will be of concern. This largely depends on species choice, species mixes, density of planting, and most important, sound management provision. This information is not available at this stage.

64 In addition it is difficult to see how any proposed landscaping and ecological

compensation be achieved in view of the BAA policy of safeguarding Heathrow Airport from bird strike.

65 Recommendation - The County Council OBJECTS to the Landscaping

proposals submitted in the TWA Environmental Statements. A revised Landscaping Plan would need to be submitted that is acceptable to the County Council to remove the objection.

Item 11

18

Issue - Archaeology 66 The Archaeology Chapter within the Environmental Statement highlights that

the proposed Airtrack route has a high potential for containing deposits from a variety of periods ranging from the Palaeolithic on Staines Moor to the post-medieval in Staines, and includes discussion on the potential destructive impact of the development on these deposits.

67 There has been insufficient archaeological work carried out to identify

important sites and establish the likelihood of finds, which would best be left in situ. This could have potential impact on the design and phasing of the scheme if significant finds were made. The issue is that the TWA will give deemed planning permission for the siting of the development within the limits of deviation which will then limit the scope to avoid any important finds that are subsequently made. An Archaeological Plan has not been agreed between the County Council, Spelthorne Borough Council (as Planning Authority) and English Nature and which needs to be submitted at this time as planning conditions will not avoid this problem.

68 Comments – The archaeological work required as a condition of

development will need to be incorporated into the development programme at the earliest possible opportunity.

69 Archaeological work will need to be considered in all areas of the

development where there is the potential for archaeological deposits to be impacted upon.

70 Within Surrey, the scope and detail of all the archaeological work will need to

be agreed between the applicant and the County Council’s Archaeological Advisor. The Environmental Statement Volume 1 point 7.5.6 provides a broad outline of the steps needed to be undertaken so that the County Council is in a position to determine the scope and detail of the archaeological work, and what the likely archaeological scheme will comprise.

71 Recommendation - The County Council awaits the submission of an

Archaeological Plan to be agreed between the County Council, Spelthorne Borough Council (as Planning Authority) and English Heritage.

Issue - Overhead Power Lines 72 Concern was raised relating to the planned overhead power lines across

Staines Moor. 73 Comments – The TWA Environmental Statement Volume 1 states that the

Heathrow Express trains, planned to use T5 to Staines route, will be dual voltage and as such the overhead lines will cease approximately 1km south of the tunnel entrance on Stanwell Moor. BAA/HAL state that this was the minimum requirement from Network Rail. BAA/HAL also advise (via Network Rail) that Third Rail and Overhead Lines should not be within a confined space such as a tunnel, due to ‘earth leakage’ and corrosion of reinforced concrete.

74 Recommendation - The County Council insists that the overhead power line

is reduced to the shortest possible length, to be agreed with BAA/HAL and the County Council.

Item 11

19

Issue - Waste arisings from construction and disposal 75 The report indicates that of the 376,000 cubic metres of waste referred to as

“non-landfill” waste, some will be surplus (i.e. in addition to the estimated 49,000 cubic metres of contaminated landfill waste). How is this to be treated?

76 Comments – Had this proposal been submitted as an application for planning

permission, the applicant would have been required to submit a waste management plan in accordance with recommendations in CLG’s Validation of Planning Applications Guidance (December 2007). Without this submission, the planning application could not be properly assessed and it would not be considered possible for a planning decision to be made. It is reasonable to assume that the same principle would apply to a TWA application.

77 There is a need for an environmental impact assessment to assess the

acceptability of the application. This environmental impact assessment does not adequately address the issue of waste management; therefore the potentially significant environmental impact of the proposals cannot be fully assessed prior to the completion of a waste management plan.

78 The waste management plan should include full survey information on the

types of material and the method and location of disposal. It should include a clear indication of the surplus spoil volume. The report indicates that of the 376,000 cubic metres of waste referred to as “non-landfill” waste, some will be surplus (i.e. in addition to the estimated 49,000 cubic metres of contaminated landfill waste).

79 The plan should identify licensed sites for the disposal of spoil that are

located as close as possible to the construction site, i.e. in northwest Surrey. Consideration should be given to the remediation of hazardous waste. Any reasons for it being untreatable should be clearly stated.

80 Recommendation – the proposals submitted in the TWA Environmental

Statements for waste management are insufficient. BAA/HAL should submit a waste management plan to allow Surrey County Council to form a judgement on this point.

BUS AND RAIL STATIONS (see also South West Trains Network map earlier in this report.) 81 Existing stations need to cope with the additional passenger numbers. For

instance, existing lifts between platforms and to both entrances/exits at Woking station are not sufficient to deal with the increase in passengers with luggage that might be expected to interchange there for Airtrack services.

Issue - Staines Bus Station. 82 The ability of buses to turn right out of Staines bus station. 83 Comments - The County Council and Spelthorne Borough Council have

agreed to the Elmsleigh Centre’s proposals on the layout of the bus bays on South Street, under the recently approved Planning Application.

Item 11

20

84 Recommendation – The County Council does not raise any objections at

this stage and will comment when the Planning Application is submitted. Issue - High Street (Staines) Station 85 Concern that deletion of the proposed new station is not adequately justified. 86 Comments – BAA/HAL state that demand forecasting showed very low

incremental patronage figures (47,000 net) for the station and that the station would result in a range of environmental impacts, such as station noise, townscape and visual impacts, flood risk and potential privacy concerns associated with adjacent dwellings. Heathrow Express extended to run into Staines station in lieu of this new station.

87 Although the forecast figures are low, new patronage is likely to be generated

by people living in Spelthorne and working in Woking/Guildford and visa versa.

88 Construction costs are estimated at around £17m, but evidence of similar new

stations have been constructed for £3 to 6m. 89 Recommendation – the originally planned High Street (Staines) station

should be reinstated, to provide a direct rail service between Staines, Woking and Guildford.

Issue and Comments - Staines Station including forecourt 90 The original railway station (Kingston Road side) will be demolished and

relocated approximately 25m east of its present location so that the new ‘bay platform and railway track’ can be constructed. There is concern about the lack of detail on station facilities (e.g. ticket office windows, retail, refreshments etc).

• There is still little detail to give confidence that the new station will offer a

high quality facility to attract passengers and meet the standards set by Heathrow Express services. Further details are expected when a Planning Application is made.

91 Lack of detail on interchange facilities within the forecourt relating to bus

movements.

• There is little detail on the design of the interchange in the north side forecourt, not enough to give confidence that the layout of bus bays will allow buses to overtake each other. BAA/HAL state that this has been modeled and the swept paths are acceptable. This will be confirmed when a Planning Application is submitted.

92 Reduction in staff and public car parking in station forecourt due to station

remodelling.

• No objection in loss of 23 public car parking spaces, subject to improvements in public transport/walking/cycling facilities. Spare capacity is available within Staines Town Centre. London Road Car Park is only 100m away – but may need signing, publicity, etc. However, if free on-

Item 11

21

street parking is available then it may not be well used. No cycle parking facilities are indicated on north side of station.

93 New footbridge may affect the Highway.

• BAA/HAL have confirmed that the new footbridge will be located on non highway land and will be maintained by Network Rail.

94 Increased car/taxi/cycle/pedestrian movements from passengers accessing

new train services at the station.

• If the model is not robust, then the effects on the car / taxi / cycle / pedestrians are misleading.

• If the model is correct and robust, the Transport Assessment (Volume

6) assumes that the effect is small because parking controls are in place. This is not the case for Chertsey and Staines.

• The Transport Assessment does not seem to include movements

regarding Heathrow Express and other passengers using the service for other stops, therefore the effect is underestimated.

• Are the facilities for pedestrians/cyclists adequate for any increase in

movements to/from the station? This is linked to whether the modelling is robust.

• Mitigation should be provided for the County Council to review surface

access to Train Stations. 95 Recommendation – the proposal should be amended to provide additional

cycle parking facilities on the north side of the planned new Staines station. The precise details of these facilities should be agreed between the County Council, scheme promoters and South West Trains.

Item 11

22

Issue - Virginia Water Station 96 Has Virginia Water Station been considered for a stopping location? 97 Comments – If Airtrack trains stopped at Virginia Water, this would enable

improved connections to be made to Staines and stations on the Reading line from Guildford/Woking.

98 Recommendation – The County Council requests that BAA/HAL investigate

the possible use of Virginia Water as a stopping location on the Guildford/Woking route.

Issue - Chertsey Station 99 Concerns about car park capacity and potential use of station as park and

ride. 100 Comments – Site visits indicate that the car park is well used, with some

available spaces at times. The County Council has no real concerns. The car park is managed by Network Rail.

101 The number of passengers may have been underestimated, as the Transport

Assessment does not seem to include passengers using the Heathrow Express or services for other stations, therefore the true impact cannot be judged. Mitigation, however, is likely to be the same. On-street parking controls may need reviewing in order to prevent parking dangerously and/or control any potential overspill parking.

102 Recommendation – The County Council will need to review the impact from

an Airtrack service from this station in relation to on-street parking, in which funding will be required as mitigation.

Issue - Platform Lengths 103 Platform lengths at certain stations are not long enough for 10-car trains. 104 Comments and Recommendation – Network Rail / DfT are planning on 10

and 12 car sets for 2012 and it will be a requirement of them to upgrade platforms within the existing network. The County Council does not raise any objection to this issue.

INDIRECTLY AFFECTED 105 It is unknown whether the new Airtrack scheme will generate significant

additional car trips to all stations, which have access to Airtrack services. The TWA process does not place a requirement on BAA/HAL to consider or mitigate this.

106 If detailed work at a later stage reveals that there are additional trips which

cause negative impacts on the highway network, these will have to be mitigated and funding sought from BAA/HAL for any measures required.

Item 11

23

Guildford 107 The Airtrack Service will operate on existing rail track, therefore there are no

improvement works planned in the Guildford area.

108 Guildford will benefit from Airtrack in that the service will provide direct rail services to Heathrow Terminal 5 (T5), however, it will not provide a direct service to Staines, as the planned new railway station at High Street Staines will now not be constructed. Airtrack trains will use the new chord, and therefore ‘bypass’ Staines station.

109 To access Staines, passengers would need to change at Chertsey. This is however a slight improvement as the present arrangement of changing at Woking as well as Weybridge can be avoided. It is considered that not many people would take up this option.

110 By the time Airtrack services operate, it is forecast that passengers will use the service from Guildford to gain access to Heathrow T5.

111 A small number of people may use the Airtrack service from Ash Vale, with a change at Woking, but again the Rail Air coach service is available now. Also, a small number of people may use the Airtrack service from Ash and Wanborough with a change at Guildford.

Woking 112 The Airtrack service will operate on existing rail track, therefore there are no

improvement works planned in the Woking area.

113 The present Rail Air Coach service from Woking railway station to Heathrow Airport is likely to be withdrawn, as the Airtrack service will replace this.

114 Woking will benefit from Airtrack in that the service will provide direct rail services to Heathrow T5, however, it will not provide a direct service to Staines, as the planned new railway station at High Street Staines will now not be constructed. Airtrack trains will use the new chord, and therefore ‘bypass’ Staines station.

115 To access Staines, passengers would need to change at Chertsey, with no added advantage to the present arrangement of changing at Weybridge.

116 By the time Airtrack services operate, it is forecast that in the am peak hour 206 passengers will use the service from Woking to gain access to Heathrow T5.

Surrey Heath 117 The Airtrack service will operate on existing rail track, therefore there are no

improvement works planned in the Surrey Heath area. 118 There are issues in Surrey Heath in that it is not planned for Airtrack trains to

call at Ascot, without which will mean no benefit to the Surrey Heath stations of Frimley, Camberley and Bagshot. As such Ascot station should be included in the schedule of stations that the Airtrack service (Reading to T5) will call at.

Item 11

24

119 Greater attention needs to be given in the Airtrack scheme proposals to the

needs of Surrey Heath borough. Improved rail links between the Surrey Heath rail stations of Frimley, Camberley and Bagshot with both Heathrow and London should be considered as part of the Airtrack scheme, including the inclusion of Ascot station.

Waverley 120 The impact on the Waverley area is minimal, as the Airtrack service does not

extend to the stations in this area. However, there could be some additional patronage from Haslemere, Witley, Milford, Godalming and Farncombe as South West Trains (SWT) services will connect with Airtrack services at Guildford and Woking.

121 No details are available on forecast patronage from these towns, but it is considered to be small, as a through SWT service is available at present to Woking where the Rail Air service can be used.

122 A small number of people may use the Airtrack service from Farnham, with a change at Woking, but again the Rail Air coach service is available now.

Other Issues 123 During the last round of consultation other issues were raised that have not

been included in the above themes, therefore these issues have been detailed below.

Issue: Viability of scheme 124 Concerns have been raised regarding the viability of the project given the

economic downturn. 125 Comments; BAA/HAL and not the County Council are promoting the scheme.

BAA/HAL will need to put forward a Business Case for the project. Issue: Airtrack Fares 126 Further clarification regarding the fares to London were requested and in

particular, whether passengers using Staines station to get to London Paddington via Heathrow, would be required to pay a ‘Premium Fare’.

127 Comments; this is an operational issue and will depend on the prevailing

fares environment set by the Government. Issue: Airtrack and third runway 128 What is the relationship between the Airtrack proposals and a third runway at

Heathrow? 129 Comments; there have been proposals to build a southern rail link into

Heathrow since the 1960s. The Airtrack Forum first put the current proposals forward in 2000, and since 2006 Heathrow Airport Limited further developed these proposals. However, there is no direct link to proposals for the construction of a third runway at Heathrow.

Item 11

25

Issue: Surrey County Council response to Government 130 How much weight would Government give to Surrey County Council’s

response? 131 Comments; Surrey County Council is one of the Local Authorities in the area

that BAA/HAL must consult with. The County Council will respond to this consultation including an ‘Issues and Mitigation log’ that will be sent to the Secretary of State. If required, a Public Inquiry will be held that will be presided over by an Inspector, when all formal relevant objections and support will be investigated and the Inspector will report to the Secretary of State who will determine the application.

Issue: Liaison with neighbouring authorities 132 Has the County Council carried out liaison with neighbouring authorities such

as Windsor and Maidenhead, which have level crossings, which could be affected?

133 Comments; There has been some liaison with neighbouring authorities

outside of Surrey in the past. However, now that the TWA Heathrow Airtrack Order has been submitted, it is for each authority to determine its response to the Secretary of State.

Issue: Airtrack partially implemented 134 The possibility that the Airtrack proposals could be implemented partially

rather than in full. For example, by running additional services between Staines and Waterloo but not Reading and Guildford, in order to minimise costs.

135 Comments; Yes, this would save the cost and disruption of the Staines

Chord construction, but not that of the Staines Moor new line. It would also impact on the business case overall for Airtrack. We would expect BAA/HAL to have modelled this as an alternative to the scheme it is currently proposing. However, it is not known whether they have done this.

OPTIONS 136 The County Council has previously supported the principle of the Heathrow

Airtrack scheme for the benefits that it will bring to Surrey in general and Spelthorne Borough in particular.

137 There remain several major issues of detail where the County Council will want to be reassured about the impact of the scheme on residents and businesses. This includes the impact of the new services on level crossings, local traffic, car parking, waste, landscaping, rights of way and station access and cycle facilities.

138 The Cabinet may therefore wish to qualify its response to this consultation exercise by providing additional comments to the recommendations.

Item 11

26

CONSULTATIONS 139 BAA/HAL have sent copies of their TWA Order and associated material to a

wide circulation list and the public can view these documents at local libraries and Borough Council offices within Spelthorne and Runnymede and on line (www.heathrowairport.com).

140 Members of the County Council have received copies of the Non-technical

Summary of the Environmental Statement relating to the TWA 1992, Heathrow Airtrack Order 2009.

141 BAA/HAL’s timetable for TWA Order allows for a formal response from the

County Council on 18 September 2009 (42 day period). However, the County Council has requested an extension to this period until 14 October, due to the ‘summer recess’ to its committee process. Following the County Council’s formal response, it is likely that a public inquiry will be held during the spring of 2010.

142 The following have been consulted and their views are attached in

accompanying Annexes as follows:- ANNEX A Guildford, Runnymede, Spelthorne, Surrey Heath, Waverley and Woking Local Committees ANNEX B Emergency Services, ANNEX C written responses from individual Districts/Boroughs.

FINANCIAL AND VALUE FOR MONEY IMPLICATIONS 143 There are no immediate cost implications of this scheme, apart from officer

time to assess and respond to the TWA. The scheme could bring economic benefits to Surrey and Spelthorne. These benefits have not yet been quantified.

144 There is, however, a cost to the County in making representations, preparing for and attending a Public Inquiry in addition to the cost already incurred in responding to the TWA submission.

SECTION 151 OFFICER COMMENTARY 145 The s151 Officer confirms that all material, financial and business issues and

risks have been considered in this report.

EQUALITY IMPLICATIONS 146 In general terms, improving rail services has positive equalities and diversity

implications because it improves mobility for people without access to a car. Any new trains required for this service are likely to be more accessible than existing trains.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS 147 The main risk to the County would be if the Airtrack scheme were to progress

without any of the mitigation measures identified to date, resulting in severe congestion and air quality problems particularly in the Egham area.

Item 11

27

148 This rail scheme is being promoted by BAA/HAL and as such the risks in

terms of funding and delivery rest with them. At this stage the County Council’s approach is that BAA/HAL will fund all the mitigation measures identified to date. As such this does not place any financial burden on the County Council at this time.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE COUNCIL’S PRIORITIES OR COMMUNITY STRATEGY/LOCAL AREA AGREEMENT TARGETS 149 None. RECOMMENDATIONS:

150 That Surrey County Council should respond formally to the Transport and Works Act (TWA) order in the following terms. The County Council should lodge objections to the elements of the scheme, which would cause undue adverse impacts to some parts of Surrey and it is essential that they seek suitable mitigation measures, changes to the proposal and/or funding from the scheme promoters. Whilst the County Council supports the principles and objectives of the scheme, it cannot support the proposal as currently defined unless these mitigation actions are taken.

151 The points on which the County Council should OBJECT are:

i. the business case for the scheme assumes that the new rail services can be added without detriment to existing rail services. However the scheme promoters have yet to provide a complete draft rail timetable for the scheme. The County Council needs assurance that the new airport services can be accommodated on the existing network without reducing existing services or the capacity of the rail network to allow for future growth in rail travel. In addition the Committee requests HAL to provide the reasons why the High Street station does not have a sound business case.

Relating to Spelthorne Borough

ii the proposed Bridleway 50 located between the planned railway and the M25 is unsuitable because it would be an unattractive route for horse riders and cyclists. The Committee recommends that HAL should be required to enter into further negotiations with the County Council and Spelthorne Borough Council to find a mutually acceptable and safe solution to Bridleway 50 and Cycle Route T5, which has minimal impact on Staines Moor ahead of any public inquiry.

iii the proposed Rights of Way amendments should be amended, both to correct errors in the application and to create more sensible routes. The County Council should continue its dialogue with BAA/HAL and Spelthorne Borough Council to define an appropriate network of Rights of Way.

iv the proposed Staines – Stanwell Moor – T5 Cycle Route is not

suitable because it does not meet Core Design Values for cycling, in safety, directness, attractiveness and comfort where an improvement could be made. A T5 cycle route must be retained and the Committee

Item 11

28

recommends that HAL should be required to enter into further negotiations with the County Council and Spelthorne Borough Council to find a mutually acceptable and safe solution to Cycle Route T5, which has minimal impact on Staines Moor ahead of any public inquiry.

v the SSSI and Ecology treatment proposals submitted in the TWA Environmental Statements due to insufficient compensatory land proposed for the loss of nationally important SSSI. The Committee wishes to register serious concerns regarding the likelihood of successfully translocating biologically important plants to new habitats and the uncertainty in relation to the implementation of the scheme if all the proposed compensation land identified is not all acquired by HAL.

vi insufficient landscaping proposals have been submitted in the TWA

Environmental Statements. A Landscaping Plan would need to be submitted that is acceptable to the County Council to remove the objection.

vii the proposals submitted in the TWA Environmental Statements for

waste management are insufficient. BAA/HAL should submit a Waste Management Plan to allow Surrey County Council to form a judgement on this point.

viii the originally planned High Street (Staines) station should be reinstated to provide a direct rail service between Staines, Woking and Guildford. If not the Committee requests HAL to provide the evidence why the High Street station does not have a sound business case.

ix the proposal should be amended to provide additional cycle parking facilities on the north side of the planned new Staines station. The precise details of these facilities should be agreed between the County Council, scheme promoters and South West Trains.

x the lack of mitigation measures . The County Council is not satisfied that sufficient mitigation measures have been planned to alleviate on-street parking in the area of Staines station and therefore requires funding towards consultation and implementation of a Controlled Parking Zone.

xi the impact of traffic in Staines town centre. This is of concern whilst

the construction of the planned railway is being undertaken. The TWA application modelling has not been presented adequately to enable a judgement to be made. This modelling should show the longer term impacts arising from increased delays from the additional junction in South Street for the multi-storey car park and the impact of queuing at the Thorpe Road level crossing on the A308/A320 roundabout and Staines Bridge.

xii the proposals for the Staines Chord in relation to the combined car

parks onto the Thames Street junction on grounds of congestion. The County Council would wish to work with BAA/HAL to resolve this issue and address concerns relating to the phasing of the works to complete

Item 11

29

the ramp for the multi storey car park, prior to the rest of the Elmsleigh surface car park being taken to build the scheme.

xiii that HAL should fully demonstrate that the shortest possible and

practical length of overhead electric lines on Stanwell Moor be agreed subject to HAL providing full technical information of the change over process

xiv the potential impacts of the TWA on air quality especially in relation

Spelthorne as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).

Relating to Runnymede Borough

xv the scheme as proposed will cause unacceptable traffic problems at a number of level crossings, with increased down times. This will lead to traffic congestion and delays, poor bus reliability and access problems for the emergency services, especially the Thorpe Road, Vicarage Road and Station Road areas. A mitigation package of measures currently being identified is essential to overcome these concerns, the Committee argues strongly that the funding of the identified measures (which will be subject to Cabinet approval) is provided by the scheme promoters.

Relating to Surrey Heath Borough

xvi Ascot station should be included in the schedule of stations that the Airtrack service (Reading to T5) will call at.

152 In addition, there are a number of issues which are of concern but which may not be suitable for an objection to the TWA order. In particular, the scheme promoters should continue to work closely with the County Council, borough/district councils and other interested parties to mitigate the impact of the construction of the scheme.

153 If the scheme is successful in its application for TWA powers, a steering group of the Transport for Surrey Partnership should be established to oversee the construction process and any other issues, which arise during implementation of the scheme.

154 Comments on the proposed responses to the TWA order to assist in informing the County Council’s formal response have been attached in ANNEX A from the Guildford, Runnymede, Spelthorne, Surrey Heath, Waverley and Woking Local Committees. Also attached in ANNEX C are written responses from individual Districts/Boroughs.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 155 The TWA application and associated documents submitted has enabled

officers to make an informed view on the basis of the information provided. Where these have raised sufficient concern an objection has been included within the Recommendations.

156 The Heathrow Airtrack scheme would bring positive benefits to Surrey, especially where the Airtrack service is planned to stop (Guildford, Woking

Item 11

30

and Chertsey). It would not only improve access to Heathrow, but would also increase capacity for other rail services. This would help to reduce rail overcrowding and provide an alternative to the private car.

157 There are likely to be economic benefits. The scheme would help airport employees to travel to work. It would also help to improve Surrey’s attractiveness as a location for businesses by providing direct rail access to Heathrow for overseas travel.

158 However, as with all major transport schemes, there would be disadvantages. There will inevitably be some disruption during the construction phase. Increases in the number of rail services will lead to longer/ more frequent level crossing closures. A fact that could occur in any case if current train operating companies increase train frequencies, which they would not be required to consult the County Council upon.

159 The construction of the railway across Staines Moor and Stanwell Moor raises major concerns relating to the SSSI, rights of way, waste disposal and landscaping.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT 160 The closing date for the current consultation is 18 September 2009. An

extension to the 42 day period has been granted to enable a formal response to be made. Cabinet will be making this decision on the 29 September 2009 and a formal response can be made as soon as the call-in period has expired, i.e. 8 October 2009.

161 A public inquiry is expected during the spring of 2010, and if powers are approved, construction is expected to commence early in 2011 with services starting in 2014.

Lead/Contact Officer: Iain Reeve, Head of Transport for Surrey 020 8541 9375 Consulted: Local Committees for: Guildford, Runnymede, Spelthorne, Surrey Heath, Waverley And Woking Transportation Select Committee and Environment and Economy Select Committee

Trevor Pugh, Director for Environment and Infrastructure, Iain Reeve, Head of Transport for Surrey, Phil Walker, Head of Finance, Ian Lake, Cabinet Member for Transport

Sources/background papers: Transport and Works Act Order – Submitted 24 July 2009.

ANNEXE A

Item 11

31

Response from Guildford Local Committee (7 September 2009) Concerns 1. The 47 minutes journey time compares badly with driving and RailAir, also related

to issue of whether services should stop at Chertsey and/or Virginia Water.

2. Services commence daily at 0530 - too late for early morning business and charter markets.

3. Service only goes to T5; those travelling from T1 - 4 will have additional journey

times within the airport.

4. RailAir coach services may be rendered uneconomic and may cease.

5. Only 1 (peak) or 2 (off peak) 5-carriage trains per hour. This is capacity driven, not passenger focussed.

6. Adequacy of replacement land for SSSI land take, and how this is calculated.

7. Overarching disappointment with the scheme, described as a "Sunday Service".

8. Cost implications for SCC in making representations, preparing for and attending

Public Inquiry etc.

9. Need for better information regarding waste haul routes, and our ability to have these varied as the project progresses.

10. Need for better understanding of traffic impact on Guildford, in terms of trips

attracted to Guildford station.

ANNEXE A

Item 11

32

Response from Spelthorne Local Committee (9 September 2009) Concerns Spelthorne Local Committee: 1. Resolves that the scheme has the potential to cause severe harm to

Spelthorne and therefore the committee objects strongly to the current proposals contained within the TWA and presses for suitable mitigation measures to be paid for by the scheme proposers HAL.

2. Resolves that the County Council and the Borough Council should continue to

work closely together to ensure a high level of consistency between their respective objections to the Transport and Works Act application.

3. Makes the following responses to the Objections listed in the Officer

Recommendations

i The Committee agrees but asks HAL to explain why the High Street station does not have a sound business case.

ii The Committee recommends that HAL should first be required to address

issues deemed to be unacceptable on the existing routes for Bridleway 50 and Cycle Route T5 before alternative routes are identified (which do not have an adverse impact on the moor) and that further discussion takes place between county and borough officers to reach agreement on this issue. The Committee also recommends that issues of safety are taken into account.

iii The Committee agrees with this recommendation. iv See Objection ii. A T5 cycle route must be retained. v The Committee agrees with this objection as protection of Staines Moor

SSSI is of critical importance. The committee also wishes to register serious concerns regarding the likelihood of successfully translocating biologically important plants to new habitats and the uncertainty in relation to the implementation of the scheme if all the proposed compensation land identified is not all acquired by HAL.

vi The Committee agrees with this objection but observes that no

landscaping proposals have yet been made. vii The committee agrees with this recommendation. viii It is for HAL to explain why the High Street station does not have a

sound business case. ix The Committee agrees with this recommendation. x The Committee agrees with this recommendation. xi The Committee agrees with this recommendation but asks that the

County Council also considers its concerns in relation to longer term impacts arising from increased delays from the additional junction in

ANNEXE A

Item 11

33

South Street for the multi-storey car park and the impact of queuing at the Thorpe Road level crossing on the A308/A320 roundabout and Staines Bridge.

xii The Committee agrees with this recommendation but argues strongly that

the impact on Staines Town Centre from the increased down times on the Thorpe Road Level Crossing is of critical importance. The Committee notes that highway improvements have so far only been identified to deal with Vicarage Road and that HAL must also be required to fund improvements to the Thorpe Road crossing.

xiii The Committee has no comment to make on this.

4. Express serious concern in relation to the Staines Chord proposals concerning

the feasibility of linking the two car parks and the lack of evidence from HAL on this issue. Wishes to highlight problems for traffic seeking to exit from the combined car parks on to the Thames Street Junction and also the failure by HAL to consider phasing works to complete the ramp for the multi storey car park prior to the rest of the Elmsleigh surface car park being taken to build the scheme.

5. Resolves that HAL should fully demonstrate that the shortest possible and

practical length of overhead electric lines on Stanwell Moor be agreed subject to HAL providing full technical information of the change over process.

6. Objects to the potential impacts of the TWA on air quality especially in relation

Spelthorne as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). 7. Recommends that the Borough Council and County Council should work

closely together to ensure that Spelthorne residents' interests are fully represented during the construction and operation of this new scheme, should it go ahead; that the statutory roles and responsibilities of all of the member organisations of TfS Partnership are to be respected; and that the Borough Council and County Council should come back to the local committee for discussion during any construction phase.

8. Recommends that the comments of the Spelthorne Local Committee are

incorporated in full as an Annex to the Cabinet report. 9. Recommends that, should it progress further, the Local Committee should be

regularly kept up to date on any further developments.

ANNEXE A

Item 11

34

Response from Runnymede Local Committee (10 September 2009) Local Committee (Runnymede) members agreed that they were generally content with the draft report subject to the following changes: a) The officer recommendation should be amended to read “The County Council

should lodge objections to elements of the scheme which would cause undue adverse impacts to some parts of Surrey, and it is essential that they seek suitable mitigation measures, changes to the proposal and/or funding from the scheme promoters.”

b) Recommendation xv to be amended to “a mitigation package of measures

currently being identified is essential to overcome these concerns.” c) Details of the survey data showing current and projected level crossing

downtimes for Runnymede should be inserted to demonstrate the severity of impact, together with an indication of the number of schoolchildren affected.

d) In section 2 Benefits of Heathrow Airtrack, specific details of substantiated

economic and other benefits to Runnymede residents should be inserted (e.g. improved links via Heathrow Express from Staines to London Paddington) to support conclusions.

Individual members also raised the following points:

Concerns

1. A traffic impact study should be undertaken to model the effects on a wider

area, and the effects of future significant developments involving lorry movements.

2. The Airtrack scheme’s projected increase in passenger numbers at Chertsey

station was challenged and it was considered that parking capacity must be addressed.

3. Details of future freight patterns as well as a detailed timetable of passenger

services should be sought as part of the level crossing downtime assessment. 4. The impact on Air Quality in the area from increased level crossing down times. Support 1. It was recognised that the report detailed points of objection to the Order so as

to ensure that these would be addressed at Public Inquiry, but there was continuing support for the principle of the Airtrack scheme, not least because it would reduce traffic using local roads.

ANNEXE A

Item 11

35

Response from Waverley Local Committee (11 September 2009) Concerns 1. Train service – train is already slow from Haslemere to Surbiton so that

Guildford can have a 15 minute service. Airtrack service could reduce quality of service to wider area just to serve a few people to get to Heathrow. To be effective would need a regular service/timetable and early morning and late night services.

2. Train capacity – the impact of Airtrack could affect a wider area for example people may use train from Portsmouth and train would be full by the time it reaches Waverley stations thus disadvantaging Waverley residents.

3. Impact on Egham – concern regarding level crossing downtimes and the fact that BAA/HAL state this is for Surrey County Council to resolve. Mitigation of the level crossing downtimes should be part of Airtrack economic case and BAA/HAL should fund such mitigation.

4. Reduction in other services – Concern that the risk of RailAir coach service from Woking being withdrawn. The Alton-Farnham line is well used. Alton is a “cul-de-sac/end of line” and concern there is a risk that if services are reduced this may affect Alton.

5. Impact on parking at/around stations – concern that Airtrack service may attract additional parking to Haslemere and Milford stations and would like to seek mitigation funding to address any parking issues that may arise. Need to co-ordinate with other potential projects – possible SW Trains scheme to improve parking at Haslemere station?

Support 1. Improved journey time reliability - If travelling to Heathrow in the early

morning/morning peak by road (whether by car or the existing RailAir service) journey times can be unreliable due to congestion. The Airtrack train service could provide a more reliable service and take cars off the road in the morning peak which would be a great advantage.

2. Reduced road congestion – good opportunity to reduce car based traffic, improve the environment and may be a spur to further improve rail infrastructure. The Airtrack service could provide additional rail capacity in the off peak.

3. Economic benefits – there could be significant benefits to residents and businesses.

Summary 1. Waverley Local Committee support scheme, which could be of benefit to

Waverley residents and businesses, could provide improved journey time reliability and reduced road congestion

2. Waverley Local Committee endorse County’s approach to seek funding of mitigation measures from BAA/HAL.

3. Have concerns regarding impact on level crossings at Egham, train services/capacity and impact on parking at/around stations.

ANNEXE A

Item 11

36

Response from Surrey Heath Local Committee (14 September 2009) The Local Committee agreed with the Recommendations presented but wished to add the following comments; Concerns 1. It is regrettable that greater attention has not been given in the Airtrack scheme

proposals to the needs of Surrey Heath borough. Improved rail links between the Surrey Heath rail stations of Frimley, Camberley and Bagshot with both Heathrow and London should be considered as part of the Airtrack scheme, including the inclusion of Ascot station.

2. Can existing stations cope with the additional passenger numbers. For

instance, existing lifts between platforms and to both entrances/exits at Woking station are not sufficient to deal with the increase in passengers with luggage that might be expected to interchange there for Airtrack services.

ANNEXE A

Item 11

37

Response from Woking Local Committee (14 September 2009) The Local Committee agreed with the Recommendations presented but wished to add the following comments; Concerns 1. Concerned that train operating times (0500 to 2400hr) and possible ‘premium

fares’ may not release the potential mode shift that the scheme could bring. 2. Include a Virginia Water stop on an ‘Airtrack Service’ or the reinstatement of

High Street (Staines) station to improve the rail link with Staines. 3. Egham level crossings require the mitigation measures introduced before the

service operates. Include in xv recommendation the level crossing down times. Support 1. The Local Committee for Woking offered support for the scheme and see it as

an exciting opportunity.

ANNEXE B

Item 11

38

Emergency Services Comments

Surrey Fire and Rescue 28 April 2009 The service response, made by the Chief Fire Officer, for inclusion in the SCC response to the Airtrack Consultation is as follows: The following two issues be forwarded in response to the Heathrow Airtrack consultation; 1. The Fire and Rescue Service would welcome the opportunity to work closely

with the project owners on the fire safety strategy and the operational response for both the construction and normal operation phases of the project.

2. The Fire and Rescue Service are concerned by the potential for increased

delays in making an emergency response due to the lengthier barrier closures and anticipated additional road traffic congestion.

Dave Steggles - Surrey Fire & Rescue Service

Surrey Police (PC Graham Cannon) 8 May 2009:-

I have discussed the matter with Insp Roger Nield (Neighbourhood Inspector for Runnymede) and would make the following comments-;

The Egham/ Thorpe areas are severed by the rail line and the only way to cross is via one of the four level crossings which include Thorpe Road, Vicarage Road, Station Road and Prune Hill. So obviously we are concerned that the increase in barrier down time will, in certain instances, delay our response to a particular emergency. The only alternative routes are 1) A30 Egham Hill/ Bakeham Lane/ Callow Hill/ B389 Christchurch Road/ Stroude Road, or 2) B3376 Thorpe Road/ St Pauls Road/ Bowes Road/ A320 Chertsey Road. Route 1 is rather time consuming and route 2 is not a practical route given that it uses small residential roads, which could result in complaints from local residents.

Unlike SFR (Surrey Fire and Rescue) and SAS (Surrey Ambulance Service) vehicles, police vehicles are not always parked at a particular holding station and more often than not are called to an emergency whilst on patrol. Therefore taking into account the severance of the rail line, the officers could be the correct side to attend the emergency and consequently the barrier down time will not be a factor. If however the patrol vehicle does have to cross the rail line then officers would normally use the shortest and quickest route. If approaching a closed barrier, due the fact that there is no practical alternative route, officers would most likely wait at the level crossing until the barriers opened. Looking at the barrier closure times supplied by the Airtrack consultants recently, this can range between one to over four minutes. This is the current situation that we are faced with and if the Airtrack Scheme goes ahead, with the projected increase in barrier downtime, the delays will increase in both time and frequency.

Obviously given all of the above we are concerned with the projected increase in barrier downtime, however both Roger and I hold the view that we should not issue any particular statement indicating that Surrey Police either support or object to this initiative. We believe that the correct way forward at this stage is to work with the Level Crossing Sub Group to find a way to minimise the impact the Airtrack Scheme may have, should it be implemented.

ANNEXE B

Item 11

39

Graham Cannon - Surrey Police

Surrey Ambulance Service 6 June 2009

At the moment we miss achieving the government targets on a number of calls within the Egham area. I can not put this all down to the time spent waiting at level crossings but this does impact our figures. Therefore any extra increase in the time the level crossing gates are down will cause us problems.

We have tried to place either an ambulance or a car at Runnymede park (by the river) 24hrs a day, but if more than one call comes in, in the Runnymede area and the level crossing gates are down - there may be a significant delay putting patients at risk.

Therefore SECAMB will object to any extra time the barriers are down at all the crossings in the Egham/Runnymede area.

Sue Day SECAMB

ANNEXE C

Item 11

40

Written responses from individual Districts/Boroughs

• Letter from Woking Borough Council

• Letter from Surrey Heath Borough Council

• Letter from Tandridge District Council