|
New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
From Watford Observer July 2, 2004
New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents by KATIE SAMUEL REVISED plans for the new tube depot proposed for Croxley Green have failed to meet the approval of local residents, who have pledged to continue to fight against the development. In March this year, representatives from Metronet and London Underground Limited (LUL) held a meeting to answer any concerns neighbours had about the plans. More than 100 people attended and were angry that the representatives were unprepared and unable to answer many of their queries. However, Metronet says it did take on board most of the issues raised and has since revised the plans accordingly, leading to a decision to have the majority of the deliveries for the site now come in by barge instead of lorry. The aim of the depot is to be a base for track renewal work that will take place over the next 15 years. Extensive investigation was carried out at a number of sites and Croxley was found to be most suitable - using disused railway land to the south of Croxley Green and the north west of the Grand Union Canal. But some residents feel the site should not have been considered because of its positioning within the Green Belt. One resident, who did not wished to be named, said: "I am amazed the proposals have got to this stage with it being Green Belt land - why is Three Rivers District Council prepared to allow this? "There is a school on Harvey Road so there are children going down there and even if they have cut down the number of lorries, just one lorry is one too many." The neighbour of the site also feels strongly that issues bought up at the public meeting have not been dealt with sufficiently and that a second meeting should have been arranged to answer questions that Metronet and LUL had been unable to respond to. She said: "There will still be lorries going down Harvey Road and workers will still come down there. "And in addition to this, we do not feel like part of London Underground as we are not even in zone six and have to buy more expensive tickets to travel - there must be an alternative." Neighbours also expressed concern that lorries would still be travelling into the area to load the barges. However, Metronet were quick to quash these rumours, explaining that the bulk of the material will travel by barge which will be loaded from trains via West Drayton or via quarry in Denham. With regards to arranging a second public meeting, the representatives from Metronet and LUL met with those from Three Rivers District Council and decided that a two-day presentation would be more apt and personal where residents could put forward their concerns on a one-to-one basis. They denied the development would be inappropriate within the Green Belt, explaining that after their investigations, there was no alternative site that provided all the necessary features that Croxley Green could. The 21-day consultation period is in its final stages and anyone wishing to see a copy of the application can obtain one from Croxley Green library or Three Rivers District Council. John Burke WRUG |
New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
"Robin May" wrote in message
. 4... Seems like typical NIMBYism to me. Why do some people think that the acronym "NIMBY" is a means of gaining them support and justification for imposing some quality-of-life-reducing development on someone else? These sorts of things should be built Well Away from where people live, even if it adds significantly to the cost. |
New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
David Splett wrote:
"Robin May" wrote in message . 4... Seems like typical NIMBYism to me. Why do some people think that the acronym "NIMBY" is a means of gaining them support and justification for imposing some quality-of-life-reducing development on someone else? These sorts of things should be built Well Away from where people live, even if it adds significantly to the cost. 1) Why should cost not form part of the consideration, after all the money will have to come from somewhere, in this instance most likely the local taxpayers pocket. 2) Why should be people not have to put up with the temporary inconvenience that improvements cause? As was suggested before, NIMBYISM. |
New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
"JWBA68" wrote in message
... From Watford Observer July 2, 2004 One resident, who did not wished to be named, said: "I am amazed the proposals have got to this stage with it being Green Belt land - why is Three Rivers District Council prepared to allow this? I believe the Green Belt does not apply to transport infrastructure, otherwise the M25 could never have been built. -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
"John Rowland" wrote in
: "JWBA68" wrote in message ... From Watford Observer July 2, 2004 One resident, who did not wished to be named, said: "I am amazed the proposals have got to this stage with it being Green Belt land - why is Three Rivers District Council prepared to allow this? I believe the Green Belt does not apply to transport infrastructure, otherwise the M25 could never have been built. Wasn't the main reason for the M25 being built on the green belt that the NIMBYs would never have allowed it to be built anywhere else? |
New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
On 02 Jul 2004 23:43:46 GMT, (JWBA68) wrote:
"There is a school on Harvey Road so there are children going down there and even if they have cut down the number of lorries, just one lorry is one too many." Said the mother dropping off a lone child, having driven 200 metres in a small truck masquerading as a car.... -- Nick Cooper [Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!] The London Underground at War: http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm 625-Online - classic British television: http://www.625.org.uk 'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic: http://www.thingstocome.org.uk |
New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
"Piccadilly Pilot" wrote in message ... 1) Why should cost not form part of the consideration, after all the money will have to come from somewhere, in this instance most likely the local taxpayers pocket. 2) Why should be people not have to put up with the temporary inconvenience that improvements cause? As was suggested before, NIMBYISM. Interesting that we never hear of NIMBYISM when housing estates are expanded out of town to engulf commercial properties that were previously remote, subsequently leading to the businesses having to either close down or relocate due to hostility of the new neighbours. ;-)) What assurances will Metronet receive that, if they do incur additional expenditure by locating further away from Croxley Green, the local council will not then plan a new housing estate for sometime in the next twenty years that will *still* result in the depot being surrounded by residential properties? |
New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
Jack Taylor wrote:
"Piccadilly Pilot" wrote in message ... 1) Why should cost not form part of the consideration, after all the money will have to come from somewhere, in this instance most likely the local taxpayers pocket. 2) Why should be people not have to put up with the temporary inconvenience that improvements cause? As was suggested before, NIMBYISM. Interesting that we never hear of NIMBYISM when housing estates are expanded out of town to engulf commercial properties that were previously remote, subsequently leading to the businesses having to either close down or relocate due to hostility of the new neighbours. ;-)) Not entirely true. I live in a place where a foundry has been working for over 300 years, although the scale of operation has contracted somewhat. The area is now an almost idyllic location with lots of woodland and greenery. There are a number of local residents who think the foundry should be shut simply because "times have changed". What assurances will Metronet receive that, if they do incur additional expenditure by locating further away from Croxley Green, the local council will not then plan a new housing estate for sometime in the next twenty years that will *still* result in the depot being surrounded by residential properties? Somewhere between "not a lot" and "naff all" I'd guess. |
New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
"David Splett" wrote in message ...
"Robin May" wrote in message . 4... Seems like typical NIMBYism to me. Why do some people think that the acronym "NIMBY" is a means of gaining them support and justification for imposing some quality-of-life-reducing development on someone else? These sorts of things should be built Well Away from where people live, even if it adds significantly to the cost. I prefer the acronym "BANANA" - 'Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything'! |
New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
David Splett wrote:
"Robin May" wrote in message . 4... Seems like typical NIMBYism to me. Why do some people think that the acronym "NIMBY" is a means of gaining them support and justification for imposing some quality-of-life-reducing development on someone else? These sorts of things should be built Well Away from where people live, even if it adds significantly to the cost. If people choose to live in a road between a railway and a canal, they can't expect rural peace. I bet the houses were built there *after* the railway arrived. According to Streetmap, there is already a "Works" at one end of Harvey Road and the A412 Watford Road at the other end. Metronet quite reasonably want this depot next to their railway, and are using disused railway land, not virgin Green Belt land. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
"Jack Taylor" Jack @Carney.co.uk wrote in message
... What assurances will Metronet receive that, if they do incur additional expenditure by locating further away from Croxley Green, the local council will not then plan a new housing estate for sometime in the next twenty years that will *still* result in the depot being surrounded by residential properties? The Green Belt should be that assurance. Anyway, it sounds to me that the residents are not asking for the thing to be built elsewhere, just that there should be an access road to a main road and not Harvey Road. This sounds pretty reasonable to me. Most depots are accessed from main roads, OTTOMH all except Neasden, which has one access in residential Quainton Street the other entrance on main Neasden Lane. -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
(Nick Cooper) wrote the
following in: On 02 Jul 2004 23:43:46 GMT, (JWBA68) wrote: "There is a school on Harvey Road so there are children going down there and even if they have cut down the number of lorries, just one lorry is one too many." Said the mother dropping off a lone child, having driven 200 metres in a small truck masquerading as a car.... It's really amazing the contradictions surrounding the school run. People drive their children to school to keep them safe from the marauding paedophiles which line every street. They ignore the fact that this means any child emerging from school steps out into a sea of vehicles moving extremely chaotically (when there are that many cars in what is usually a small space, normal road rules break down). I have two schools right next to each other at the end of my street and so I'm very well acquainted with what happens during the school rush. To be honest I'm amazed that no children have been killed yet. When you put together a very small street and junction, massive numbers of cars, people doing very strange and quite silly parking manoeuvres and children who seem to have very little traffic sense (the number of times I've seen children run out from between two parked cars into the path of an oncoming car!), it is surely a recipe for disaster. -- message by Robin May-Silk and his close friend, Robert Kilroy-Kotton "GIVE IN! IT'S TIME TO GO!" - The NHS offers a high standard of care. Would you take the office of relief?: http://robinmay.fotopic.net/p4600200.html |
New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
Richard J. ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying : If people choose to live in a road between a railway and a canal, they can't expect rural peace. I bet the houses were built there *after* the railway arrived. Very probably - it *is* Metroland. Either way, the railway and canal would certainly have been there when those residents moved in. |
New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
David Splett ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying : These sorts of things should be built Well Away from where people live, even if it adds significantly to the cost. So where exactly should London Underground build depots, "well away" from where people live, yet within - oooh - about 30 miles of a bit of LU track? Bearing in mind "not on green belt"? |
New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
Adrian wrote:
So where exactly should London Underground build depots, "well away" from where people live, yet within - oooh - about 30 miles of a bit of LU track? Bearing in mind "not on green belt"? Park Royal? Colin McKenzie -- The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead! |
New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
Adrian wrote:
Richard J. ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : If people choose to live in a road between a railway and a canal, they can't expect rural peace. I bet the houses were built there *after* the railway arrived. Very probably - it *is* Metroland. Either way, the railway and canal would certainly have been there when those residents moved in. I had a look at the site today. The houses date from the 1930s. The "Works" at the end of Harvey Road turns out to be IMC, the catering/bar equipment specialists, who have been there for at least 35 years. See http://www.imco.co.uk/images/small-map.jpg for a map showing how Harvey Road is their main access route. Funny how the residents don't seem to notice their lorries. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
In message , JWBA68
writes She said: "There will still be lorries going down Harvey Road and workers will still come down there. *Workers* coming down their road? Goodness! -- Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for London & the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
In message , David Splett
writes "Robin May" wrote in message .4... Seems like typical NIMBYism to me. Why do some people think that the acronym "NIMBY" is a means of gaining them support and justification for imposing some quality-of-life-reducing development on someone else? These sorts of things should be built Well Away from where people live, even if it adds significantly to the cost. Great. They can build the Croxley Rail Link in the middle of the Fens. Or in the Central Scottish Highlands. Or in Iceland. Or Antarctica. "Things" from road and railway lines to mobile telephone masts have to be built near or relatively near to centres of population as, er, that's what they serve. I'd still call it NIMBYism. -- Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for London & the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk