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

(JWBA68) wrote the following in:


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.

snip

Seems like typical NIMBYism to me.

--
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

"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.

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.

"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

"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?

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

"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?

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.

"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'!