Thameslink 2000 Inspector's Report 2006

Back to contents



London Bridge

17.2.12.English Heritage supported the Masterplan proposals. As far as the LAMAS objections are concerned, demolition of Three Castles House would not avoid demolition of 11-15 Borough High Street but in any event Network Rail does not accept the design of the replacement buildings is 'mediocre' for the reasons set out in its response to Southwark's case. The extent of demolitions at London Bridge is set out in the planning application drawings and the justification in evidence. The treatment of the train shed roof is set out in a Section 106 Agreement associated with the Masterplan proposals.

17.2.13. The concerns of Standard Chartered Bank, Sucden (UK) Limited , PriceWaterhouseCoopers and New London Bridge House Limitedare resolved by Undertakings.The Ticket Place has been offered the tenancy of two arches in Dukes Street Hill but did not take the offer up. The Section 106 Agreement associated with Masterplan are not relevant to this property as the works that would affect it are not authorised by that consent.

Environmental Statement

17.2.14. Network Rail was not aware of the existence of 25/27 Farringdon Road Residents' Association but an exhibition was held in the area and was publicised by handbills distributed throughout the area. The block was included in the specified delivery area and the lists of where deliveries could not be effected do not include the block. Although residential use is not shown on the land use survey map this is due to the convention of showing ground floor uses only, rather than a three dimensional record. However, there would be no significant impact as the building is screened for the most part by other buildings. PEMS would ensure that best practicable means of construction were used.

17.2.15. The comments of Mr Field are noted in respect of the Borough Market area.Welwyn Hatfield Council, Enfield Council, SELCHP and North Hertfordshire District Council have no objections to the ES and the latter's disappointment about station improvements in North Hertfordshire is to be passed to the team dealing with the Great Northern franchise. The impacts in the London Borough of Barnet have been adequately addressed. The Section 61 consent at Cricklewood, for work that is no longer proposed, illustrates the approach that would be taken under PEMS and the Council's membership on the Environmental and Planning sub-group would provide a vehicle for the consultation sought. The comments of East Sussex County Council and Tandridge District Council are noted.

Other Matters

17.2.16.SAVE Britain's Heritage is concerned about the demolition of the listed trainshed at London Bridge but consent has already been granted for this work as part of Masterplan.

17.2.17. Following EWS'sobjection at the first Inquiry the Inspector recommended that a clause be inserted in the Order to protect EWS's trainpaths at Bedford. However, events have overtaken the recommendation. EWS no longer holds the contract for waste trains from Cricklewood to Forders Sidings and the current operator runs fewer, longer trains that cannot be run-around at Bedford. In any event, the current Thameslink 2000 proposals do not include any alterations that would preclude running round Cricklewood freight trains of the length formerly operated by EWS at Bedford. There is a difference between a condition to protect an existing freight service and one which requires works on a speculative basis.

17.2.18 Thameslink 2000 would not affect the load bearing capacity of Blackfriars Bridge, which could be increased at a later date, although it is recognised that there could be advantages to doing the work at the same time as the construction of the new station. However, the restrictive loading on the route north of Blackfriars as far as Kentish Town severely limits the potential for freight services and the matter is essentially a business decision and not for the Inquiry.

17.2.19. The assurances given to EWS are not qualified by reference to funding, which is a matter for the Department of Transport. It is not possible to state when construction would begin in the absence of decisions on the grant of powers and funding. The ES2004 indicate the duration of construction and its intensity in particular years. Any effects on EWS and other operators would be subject to the established industry consultation under the Major Projects Notice procedure. These matters of operational detail are not for the Inquiry.

17.2.20 The Corporation of London has withdrawn its objection subject to the imposition of conditions which have been included in PEMS and Unilever has indicated its satisfaction with the situation as a result of the Corporation's agreements. The London Borough of Lewisham's objection was to Articles 11A and 11B of the draft Order and it is now agreed that these would be deleted. The proposals at St John's, which concern Miss Pamela Powell, are unchanged since the first Inquiry. The Inspector recommended conditions to be attached to the deemed planning permission relating to this part of the works which Network Rail is happy to accept.

17.2.21. Concerns of Greenwich Council would be addressed by PEMS and Section 61 prior consents. Publication of the Development Timetable could lead to misunderstandings but the train service provisions assumed in it have been communicated to the Borough. English Heritage has no objection to the proposals at Eastbourne or Brighton Stations and whilst Councillor Kenneth Scutt is disappointed that Bognor would not be a terminus for Thameslink there are no current proposals to extend the Thameslink network.

Back to top