Potential Overground Stations at Old Oak Response to issues raised report

December 2018 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

CONTENTS

List of Figures ...... 3 List of Tables ...... 5 1. Introduction ...... 7 2. Structure of the document ...... 9 3. Issues raised about the Lane station ...... 10 4. Issues raised about Victoria Road bridge ...... 19 5. Issues raised about Hythe Road station ...... 24 6. Issues raised about the consultation process ...... 33 7. Issues raised about environmental impacts ...... 36 8. Issues raised about construction impacts ...... 42 9. Issues raised about potential economic impacts ...... 46 10. Issues raised that were out of scope ...... 50 11. Issues raised about potential local road impacts ...... 53 12. Issues raised about impacts on the current transport network ...... 56 13. Issues raised about suggested connections ...... 60 14. Next steps ...... 68 Appendix 1: Summary of the proposals for Hythe Road station ...... 69 Appendix 2: Summary of the proposals for Old Oak Common Lane station ...... 72 Appendix 3: Summary of the proposals for Victoria Road bridge ...... 75

Page 1

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Page 2

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1: Potential locations of new stations ...... 7 Figure A.1-1: Legible London view of the potential Hythe Road station below ...... 69 Figure A.1-2: Illustrative visualisation of Hythe Road station (1) ...... 70 Figure A.1-3: Illustrative visualisation of Hythe Road station (2) ...... 70 Figure A.1-4: Illustrative visualisation of Hythe Road station (3) ...... 71 Figure A.2-1: Legible London view of the potential Old Oak Common Lane station ...... 72 Figure A.2-2: Illustrative visualisation of Old Oak Common Lane station (1) ...... 73 Figure A.2-3: Illustrative visualisation of Old Oak Common Lane station (2) ...... 73 Figure A.2-4: Illustrative visualisation of Old Oak Common Lane station (3) ...... 74 Figure A.3-1: An illustrative image of Old Oak Common Lane station and possible overpass to Victoria Road ...... 75

Page 3

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Page 4

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Old Oak Common Lane station ...... 12 Table 4.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Victoria Road bridge ...... 20 Table 5.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Hythe Road station ...... 26 Table 6.1: Responses to Issues Raised about the Consultation Process...... 34 Table 7.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Potential Environmental Impacts ...... 37 Table 8.1: Responses to issues Raised about Potential Construction Impacts ...... 43 Table 9.1: Responses to issues Raised about Potential Economic impacts ...... 47 Table 10.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Out of Scope Issues ...... 51 Table 11.1: Responses to issues Raised about Potential Local Road Impacts ...... 54 Table 12.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Impacts on the Current Transport Network . 57 Table 13.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Suggested Connections ...... 62

Page 5

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Page 6

1. Introduction

1.1. This report sets out TfL’s responses to the issues raised during the public consultation conducted between 16 October and 22 November 2017 on two potential new London Overground stations at Old Oak1. This report follows the Consultation Report2 that was published in December 2017.

1.2. The consultation focused on capturing public and stakeholder views on proposals for two new London Overground stations at Old Oak, sited on the line at Hythe Road and on the at Old Oak Common Lane. This followed an earlier public consultation on possible station location options, carried out in autumn 2014. The proposed location of each station is shown below at Figure 1-1.

1.3. Old Oak and is one of London’s largest Opportunity Areas and one of the largest development sites in the country, with the ambition to deliver a whole new centre and community for west London which includes 25,500 new homes and 65,000 jobs. Old Oak is the only place where (HS2), the new high speed railway between London, the Midlands and the North, meets the Elizabeth line, London’s new East-West railway. A new station at Old Oak Common will open in 2026, providing both connections to the Elizabeth line, HS2 and services and forming a hub for regeneration.

Figure 1-1: Potential locations of new London Overground stations

1 See https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/london-overground/old-oak-common/ 2 See https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/london-overground/old-oak-common/user_uploads/old-oak-common- london-overground-consultation-report-2017.pdf

Page 7

1.4. In 2014 we consulted on the idea of providing further transport connections to the London at Old Oak with three options proposed. Over 83 per cent of respondents either supported or strongly supported this idea. There was also a clear preference for Option C which suggested two new London Overground stations; one at Hythe Road on the and one at Old Oak Common Lane on the North London line.

1.5. Following the 2014 consultation, and supported with funding from the European Commission, we have worked up initial design proposals for both stations. Working closely with and the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) the designs have developed, leading to a single preferred option for each station. We have also worked closely with OPDC to ensure these designs would integrate with the proposals set out in their draft Local Plan.

1.6. We received 911 responses to the 2017 consultation, 865 of which were received through the consultation website and provided a quantified opinion on the proposals. Of these 865 respondents, 94 per cent supported or strongly supported our proposals for two new London Overground stations at Old Oak.

1.7. 86 per cent supported or strongly supported the proposals for a new station at Hythe Road, and 92 per cent supported or strongly supported the proposals for a new station at Old Oak Common Lane. Additionally, 88 per cent supported the construction of a bridge linking Victoria Road to the station at Old Oak Common Lane. More information on the responses received can be found in our Consultation Report3 (December 2017.

3 See https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/london-overground/old-oak-common/user_uploads/old-oak-common- london-overground-consultation-report-2017.pdf

Page 8

2. Structure of the document

2.1. Since the consultation closed, we have analysed the results and considered how they can, where appropriate, inform the further development of the Old Oak Overground Stations proposals. Our work is ongoing as designing two new stations on already busy sections of railway that would integrates with the planned HS2/Elizabeth line station at Old Oak is a complex task. 2.2. The remainder of this report addresses the specific issues raised through the public consultation associated with each of the proposed station options, and the Victoria Road bridge option, along with the other issues raised. 2.3. The structure of the remainder of this report, and guidance on how to navigate it is set out below: Sections 3 to 13: Issues raised by all respondents to the consultation and their responses by theme i The key themes are identified in the titles of each section from section 3 through to section 13 respectively, and these key issues follow the order of questions as presented during the consultation and correspond to the issues identified in the Consultation Report4. ii Within each section 3 to 13 respectively, the issues identified under the theme concerned are shown at the front of the section. iii After the list of issues at the front of a section, the responses are contained in the following tables, from Table 3.1 to Table 13.1 respectively. iv In some cases, an issue raised may also be very closely related to one or more other issue raised. Where this is the case the linked issue elsewhere in the document is clearly identified. v Some issues correspond to issues raised in the 2014 consultation. Where this is the case, this is made clear in the response. Section 14: Next steps vi Section 14 summarises the next steps in the development of these proposals. Appendices 1 to 3: Consultation information about station options and the potential bridge to Victoria Road vii Finally, a copy of the consultation information referring to the station options and the potential bridge to Victoria Road consulted upon is included at Appendices 1 to 3 of this report.

4 See https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/london-overground/old-oak-common/user_uploads/old-oak-common- london-overground-consultation-report-2017.pdf

Page 9

3. Issues raised about the potential Old Oak Common Lane station

Ref Main issues raised

1 I suggest that Old Oak Common Lane station should feature passive provision to allow for a future station on the Dudding Hill 2 I suggest that an alternative station is provided on the at Victoria Road 3 I suggest that a curve to connect West London line (Clapham Junction) trains to the planned Elizabeth line platforms and an additional curve to connect to the North London line towards Junction is provided. 4 I suggest that that the proposed Old Oak Common Lane station is built first 5 Retaining green space around the proposal site is important for local people 6 I am concerned about the loss of parking spaces for residents of Midland Terrace if the proposals are implemented 7 I am concerned about the Travelling Community occupying local land during construction 8 I am concerned that these plans are too intrusive, and will be opposed by local residents 9 I suggest that retail outlets are also provided as part of the station 10 I suggest that visitor accommodation (ie hotels) is provided as part of the station 11 I suggest that Old Oak Common Lane station has a turn-back facility 12 I suggest that that all station platforms allow for reversal in both directions 13 I suggest that the station is able to accommodate potential Basingstoke to Stansted services 14 I suggest that that Old Oak Common Lane station features four platforms 15 I suggest providing an alternative station at Acton Wells 16 I am concerned that Old Oak Common Lane station is too close to Willesden Junction station 17 I am concerned that Old Oak Common Lane and Hythe Road stations are too close 18 I suggest that the station should connect with the Central line 19 I suggest improving connections between Old Oak Common Lane and Willesden Junction

Page 10

Ref Main issues raised

20 I am concerned that that the planned interchange between Old Oak Common Lane station and the HS2/Elizabeth line station is too long 21 I suggest that the interchange must be accessible for passengers with reduced mobility 22 I suggest that a pedestrian link between Hythe Road station and Old Oak Common Lane station is created 23 I suggest that the station is opened in 2021 at the latest 24 I suggest downgrading Hythe Road station proposals to ensure that Old Oak Common Lane station is completed 25 I am concerned that the station design is not aesthetically pleasing 26 I suggest building the station sub-surface 27 I am concerned that there is not enough space for the station to be constructed 28 I am concerned that the station design is multi-level, rather than single level 29 I am concerned about an increase in crime on Midland Terrace if a station entrance is constructed there 30 I am concerned about an increase in illegal parking on Midland Terrace if a station entrance is constructed there 31 I am concerned that TfL has abandoned promises to local residents that an underpass would be the preferred proposal option

Page 11

Table 3.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Old Oak Common Lane station

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

1 I suggest that Old Oak Response 1: The proposals for the two new Overground stations at Old Oak have been developed Common Lane station should to provide a new link between existing services on the West and North London lines and the new feature passive provision to transport services, including HS2 and the Elizabeth line, and homes and jobs planned at Old Oak. allow for a future station on Although not part of the plans outlined in the consultation, the proposals for the Old Oak the Dudding Hill line. Common Lane station do not preclude the future provision of a station on the Dudding Hill line. In fact, separate proposals for a Line between Hounslow and and/or have been outlined in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (2018). Such a service would utilise the current freight only Dudding Hill line that joins the North London line in the Old Oak Common Lane area and could include a station at this location. This proposal is however at a very early stage of development.

2 I suggest that an alternative Response 2: Any station on the Dudding Hill line at Victoria Road would not serve existing services station is provided on the on the North London line, therefore it is not considered an alternative to the proposed station at Dudding Hill line at Victoria Old Oak Common Lane. We are however conscious of separate proposals for a new West London Road. Orbital service, and as such the proposals for Old Oak Common Lane station do not preclude the delivery of future platforms at this location. Please also refer to Response 1.

3 I suggest that a curve to Response 3: A number of alternative station locations, and associated track changes were connect West London line previously considered for linking London Overground services to the Old Oak area and the planned (Clapham Junction) trains to new HS2, Elizabeth line and National Rail station including options above, and adjacent to this the planned Elizabeth line station. This work formed the basis of our public consultation in Autumn 2014. Further detail on platforms and an additional this consultation, including background information can be found here5. curve to connect to the North London line towards Willesden Junction is provided.

5 See https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/london-overground/old-oak-common-2014/

Page 12

Table 3.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Old Oak Common Lane station

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

4 I suggest that that the Response 4: It is likely that the building of the stations would need to happen in sequence given proposed Old Oak Common the need to minimise disruption to rail services. The final delivery programme has yet to be Lane station is built first finalised as a funding strategy has yet to be confirmed. (before Hythe Road station).

5 Retaining green space around Response 5: The current proposals may require some realignment of the existing community the proposal site is important garden and parking area for the dwellings of Shaftsbury Gardens. Any future changes to the for local people. proposals would be subject to further public consultation and appropriate assessment and mitigation, including an Environmental Impact Assessment.

6 I am concerned about the loss Response 6: The current proposal does not encroach on existing parking facilities on Midland of parking spaces for residents Terrace. Any changes to the proposals would be subject to further public consultation and the of Midland Terrace if the design taken forward to planning permission would be subject to a full Environmental Impact proposals are implemented. Assessment including a Transport Assessment which would assess the impact of any possible loss of parking.

7 I am concerned about the Response 7: These proposals would not impact any existing gypsy and traveller sites. TfL would Travelling Community ensure appropriate site security at all times during the period of construction to prevent any occupying local land during unauthorised occupation. These measures would be confirmed through a Code of Construction construction. Practice which would be approved by the local planning authority and the contractor would be required to implement and abide by this as part of the planning permission for works.

8 I am concerned that these Response 8: The station would be designed to minimise disruption to the local community as far plans are too intrusive, and will as reasonably practicable including to eliminate and/or reduce visual and noise intrusions. Further be opposed by local residents. design work would take place as part of the next stage of work, and this would be subject to further public consultation. The design taken forward to planning permission would be subject to a full Environmental Impact Assessment which would assess the impact of the station on local residents.

Page 13

Table 3.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Old Oak Common Lane station

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

9 I suggest that retail outlets are Response 9: The provision of retail and potential other uses within the proposed Old Oak also provided as part of the Common Lane station has been examined as part of design work. Any further design work would station. be undertaken in line with TfL’s commercial strategy and would be subject to further public consultation.

10 I suggest that visitor Response 10: Other uses are expected to be included within the proposed station and would be accommodation (ie hotels) is examined further as part of future design work. Any further design work would be undertaken in provided as part of the station. line with TfL’s commercial strategy and would be subject to further public consultation. Please also refer to Response 9.

11 I suggest that Old Oak Response 11: The current design for Old Oak Common Lane does not include provision for a turn Common Lane station has a back facility at the station. The signalling at the station has been designed only for through trains to turn-back facility. run on the North London Line as per the current service pattern. However, to the north, a turnback sidings facility is provided north of Willesden Junction High Level station. There are currently no turnback facilities to the south.

12 I suggest that that all station Response 12: There is no proposal for a turn back facility at this station. Please also refer to platforms allow for reversal in Response 11. both directions.

13 I suggest that the station is Response 13: This is not a service that TfL is investigating and we are unaware that any such able to accommodate service is proposed by Network Rail or any rail operator at this time. potential Basingstoke to Stansted services.

14 I suggest that that Old Oak Response 14: The current design for Old Oak Common Lane only includes an island platform (2 Common Lane station platform facings) to cater for northbound and southbound NLL services. There are no existing or features four platforms. proposed future services for which four platforms at OOCL on the NLL would be required.

Page 14

Table 3.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Old Oak Common Lane station

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

15 I suggest providing an Response 15: A number of alternative station locations were previously considered for linking alternative station at Acton London Overground services to the Old Oak area and the planned new HS2, Elizabeth line and Wells. National Rail station including an option at Acton Wells. This work formed the basis of our public consultation in Autumn 2014. Further detail on this consultation, including background information can be found here6. Please also refer to Response 3.

16 I am concerned that Old Oak Response 16: Operationally there is no issue with the location of the proposed station relative to Common Lane station is too Willesden Junction station. If built, the stations would be no closer together than many other close to Willesden Junction stations on the London Overground network. Furthermore the location of the proposed Old Oak station. Common Lane station is intended to best serve both the planned HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station and the existing and planned communities at Old Oak. Please also refer to Response 3.

17 I am concerned that Old Oak Response 17: The two lines on which these stations lie serve different destinations to the south Common Lane and Hythe and are designed to each connect to the HS2 and Elizabeth line station and the wider Old Oak area Road stations are too close from those directions, not to each other. Therefore there is no duplication of service. Please also together. refer to Response 3.

18 I suggest that the station Response 18: The location of the proposed stations is intended to best serve both the planned should connect with the HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station and the existing and planned communities at Old Oak. Central line. Whilst connecting to the Central line would also be advantageous, the location of the respective stations means that directly connecting to the Central line and HS2, the Elizabeth line and National rail services is not possible.

6 See https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/london-overground/old-oak-common-2014/.

Page 15

Table 3.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Old Oak Common Lane station

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

19 I suggest improving Response 19: The provision of a new station at Old Oak Common Lane would provide a direct rail connections between Old Oak link between Willesden Junction, Old Oak Common Lane and on to the planned HS2/Elizabeth Common Lane and Willesden line/National Rail station. Separately from the plans for the new station, the OPDC are developing Junction. plans for Old Oak that will create a new centre for West London including many new connections across the area. Without the new station, the quickest link between Old Oak Common Lane and Willesden Junction would be via Old Oak Lane. Please also refer to Response 16.

20 I am concerned that that the Response 20: The proposed Old Oak Common Lane station is located as close as possible to the planned interchange between planned HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station. The interchange distance between these two Old Oak Common Lane stations is approximately 350 metres. We are working closely with HS2 and OPDC to ensure that a station and the HS2/Elizabeth high quality pedestrian link is provided between the stations. Both the station and interchange line station is too long. facilities would be designed to comply with the latest accessibility standards and existing legal requirements upon TfL including the Equality Act 2010.

21 I suggest that the interchange Response 21: The proposed Old Oak Common Lane station is located as close as possible to the must be accessible for planned HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station. The interchange distance between the two passengers with reduced stations is approximately 350 metres. We are working closely with HS2 and OPDC to ensure that a mobility. high quality pedestrian link is provided between the stations. Both the station and interchange facilities will be designed to comply with the Equality Act 2010.

22 I suggest that a pedestrian link Response 22: The OPDC are developing plans for Old Oak that will create a new centre for West between Hythe Road station London including many new connections across the area including links to, and between the two and Old Oak Common Lane potential new Overground stations and the planned HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station. Please station is created. also refer to Response 17.

23 I suggest that the station is Response 23: The station at Old Oak Common Lane is proposed to be open by 2026 to connect opened in 2021 at the latest. with the new HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station. A more detailed construction timeline would be developed as part of the next stage of work. Please also refer to Response 4.

Page 16

Table 3.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Old Oak Common Lane station

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

24 I suggest downgrading Hythe Response 24: Both potential stations are proposed to be open by 2026 to connect with the new Road station proposals to HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station. A more detailed construction timeline for both stations ensure that Old Oak Common would be developed as part of the next stage of work. Please refer to Response 4. Lane station is completed.

25 I am concerned that the Response 25: The station would be designed to best serve both passengers and the local station design is not community in both function and design. Further design work will take place as part of the next aesthetically pleasing. stage of work, and this would be subject to further public consultation. The design taken forward to planning permission would be subject to a full Environmental Impact Assessment which would include a Design and Access Statement and would assess the impact of the station design. Please also refer to Response 8.

26 I suggest building the station Response 26: This station would serve London Overground services along the existing surface sub-surface. railway. There is no proposal to design and construct the station as a sub-surface station as this would require significant works to lower the tracks. An earlier stage of design considered but discounted a sub-surface station entrance and ticket hall that would have been located beneath the platforms. Information on this option was provided as part of the public consultation7. The construction of underground (sub-surface) station infrastructure would not provide any additional journey time benefits while being significantly more expensive and environmentally disruptive to construct.

27 I am concerned that there is Response 27: Proposed worksite locations would be presented as part of a future public not enough space for the consultation. Work has been undertaken to confirm that the station based on the current design station to be constructed. can be constructed.

7 See https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/london-overground/old-oak-common/user_uploads/2017-ooc-consultation-summary-of-the-options-assessment-for-oocl-final- update.pdf

Page 17

Table 3.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Old Oak Common Lane station

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

28 I am concerned that the Response 28: The proposed station has an upper concourse level above the railway tracks and a station design is multi-level, lower, platform level only. The concourse level needs to be at a different level to the tracks to rather than single level. enable access to the platforms. Further design work would take place as part of the next stage of work, and this would be subject to further public consultation. The design taken forward to planning permission would be subject to a full Environmental Impact Assessment which would include a Design and Access Statement and would assess the impact of the station design. Please also refer to Response 26.

29 I am concerned about an Response 29: TfL would act to minimise the risk of crime, or perception of crime, in the vicinity of increase in crime on Midland the new station, including on Midland Terrace. In particular, we would work with partners including Terrace if a station entrance is the Local Highway Authority, the Police and neighbourhood groups regarding the management and constructed there. mitigation of these effects. TfL would design the station and interchange facilities to comply with the latest safety and security standards. Any future changes to the proposals would be subject to further public consultation.

30 I am concerned about an Response 30: In the event that an entrance is constructed on Midland Terrace, TfL would work increase in illegal parking on with local residents and the local authority to ensure that there was no illegal parking on Midland Midland Terrace if a station Terrace. Please also refer to Response 6. entrance is constructed there.

31 I am concerned that TfL has Response 31: TfL has carried out a thorough assessment of both bridge and underpass options to abandoned promises to local link the proposed Old Oak Common lane station to Victoria Road and enable better access from residents that an underpass the Park Royal area to Old Oak and the planned HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station. The would be the preferred outcome of this assessment and the conclusion that a bridge was the preferred option was proposal option. included as part of the public consultation in autumn 2017. This represents the latest position on the proposals and does not represent any abandoned promises. The design of the bridge will further evolve through any further design work should it be taken forward.

Page 18

4. Issues raised about the potential bridge to Victoria Road

Ref Main issues raised

32 I am concerned about the personal security of bridge users 33 I am concerned that the bridge will be unsightly 34 I am concerned over structural integrity of the potential bridge 35 I believe that a bridge is needed to connect Victoria Road to Old Oak Common Lane 36 I am concerned that the bridge will be unsuitable for cyclists 37 I am concerned that any failure to provide the bridge at the time of the station’s opening will cause disruption for residents of Shaftesbury Gardens 38 I am concerned that there is not sufficient demand to justify the construction of the bridge 39 I am concerned that there will not be any public access to the bridge (ie only accessible by passengers) 40 I suggest that the bridge must be accessible, ie step free 41 I suggest that the bridge should link with the potential West London orbital route on the Dudding Hill line 42 I suggest that the bridge should not require cyclists to dismount 43 I suggest that the bridge is future proofed to serve potential new developments 44 I suggest that the bridge designs and placement should consider the privacy of local residents 45 I suggest that the construction of Old Oak Common Lane station is prioritised over construction of the bridge 46 I oppose shared space for pedestrians and cyclists 47 I suggest that a pedestrian and cycling route should be provided linking Old Oak Common Lane station with the

Page 19

Table 4.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Victoria Road bridge

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

32 I am concerned about the Response 32: TfL would design all facilities including the proposed bridge to comply with the latest personal security of bridge safety and security standards. Any future changes to the proposals would be subject to further users. public consultation, and the design taken forward to planning permission would be subject to a full Environmental Impact Assessment that would assess the impact of the scheme on bridge users. Please also refer to Response 29.

33 I am concerned that the bridge Response 33: TfL would design the bridge to minimise disruption to the local community to will be unsightly. include elements to eliminate and/or reduce visual and noise disruptions. Any design taken forward to planning permission would be subject to a full Environmental Impact Assessment which would include an assessment of the impact of the bridge design while ensuring that any mitigations meet railways safety standards.

34 I am concerned over structural Response 34: The bridge would be structurally sound and would be designed to comply with the integrity of the potential latest engineering and safety standards and be approved by Network Rail as the owner of the bridge. infrastructure.

35 I believe that a bridge is Response 35: Although the provision of an overpass to Victoria Road is not a requirement of the needed to connect Victoria potential station, the design would allow for this to be provided, either at the same time as the Road to Old Oak Common station or at a later date. If such a bridge were provided it would substantially reduce the distance Lane station. required to access the planned Old Oak Common station from Victoria Road and the Park Royal area. The decision to proceed with such a link is not confirmed and would be subject to further review, the availability of funding and discussions with local stakeholders including residents, landowners and OPDC.

36 I am concerned that the bridge Response 36: The bridge proposals allow for suitable cycle segregation from pedestrian traffic. will be unsuitable for cyclists.

Page 20

Table 4.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Victoria Road bridge

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

37 I am concerned that any failure Response 37: No direct access to Old Oak Common Lane station would be provided from to provide the bridge at the Shaftesbury Gardens and the provision of a pedestrian bridge would not change this situation. If time of the station’s opening the bridge is not provided however, the route to access the station from Shaftsbury Gardens would will cause disruption for be longer than if the bridge were not constructed. residents of Shaftesbury Gardens.

38 I am concerned that there is Response 38: The proposed bridge would serve both passengers accessing the proposed Old Oak not sufficient demand to Common Lane Overground station as well as people accessing the Old Oak area and HS2/Elizabeth justify the construction of the Line/National Rail station from Victoria Road and the wider Park Royal area. As the scheme bridge. develops TfL will review passenger and development area forecasts to ensure that demand is sufficient to justify any proposal. This would be reported in any further consultation.

39 I am concerned that there will Response 39: If the bridge were constructed it would be fully accessible to both passengers and not be any public access to the general public. It would not be a requirement to enter the station to use the bridge. Please also the bridge (ie only accessible refer to Response 36. by passengers).

40 I suggest that the bridge must Response 40: If constructed the bridge would be fully accessible and would provide step free be accessible, ie step free. access from Victoria Road to Old Oak Common Lane as well as to Old Oak Common Lane station. As with the stations designs TfL will be subject to the Equality Act 2010 and other legal requirements. Please also refer to Response 36.

Page 21

Table 4.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Victoria Road bridge

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

41 I suggest that the bridge Response 41: The proposed bridge is intended to serve the possible Old Oak Common Lane should link with the potential station and to better link the Park Royal and Old Oak areas. Separate proposals for a West London West London orbital route on Orbital Line between Hounslow and Hendon and/or West Hampstead have been outlined in the the Dudding Hill line. Mayor’s Transport Strategy (2018). Such a service would utilise the current freight only Dudding Hill line that joins the North London line in the Old Oak Common Lane area and could include a station at this location. This proposal is however at a very early stage of development. Please also refer to Response 1.

42 I suggest that the bridge Response 42: The current bridge design provides a step free route for cyclists through the use of should not require cyclists to lifts. As such, cyclists would need to dismount prior to using the bridge. This design has been dismount. influenced by the amount of space available which limits to ability to employ ramps. The design would however be reviewed as part of any future design phase. Please also refer to Response 36.

43 I suggest that the bridge is Response 43: The Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation covers London's largest future proofed to serve development area and access to homes and jobs is at the heart of the scheme. The proposed potential new developments. bridge is intended to serve the new developments proposed in the area better linking them to one another, and Old Oak Common Lane station. Please also refer to Response 38.

44 I suggest that the bridge Response 44: In the event that it is constructed, TfL would design the bridge to respect the privacy designs and placement should of local residents. Any design taken forward to planning permission would be subject to a full consider the privacy of local Environmental Impact Assessment which would include an assessment of the impact of the bridge residents. design. Please also refer to Response 29.

45 I suggest that the construction Response 45: Old Oak Common Lane station has been designed in such a way as it could function of Old Oak Common Lane with or without the proposed bridge to Victoria Road. Any decision of prioritisation between station is prioritised over different elements of the proposals will be made as part of the next stage of work, informed by the construction of the bridge. response to this consultation. Please also refer to Response 4.

Page 22

Table 4.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Victoria Road bridge

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

46 I oppose shared space for Response 46: If constructed the bridge would allow for suitable cycle segregation from pedestrians and cyclists. pedestrians. The design and layout of the bridge would be reviewed as part of any future design phase. Please also refer to Response 36.

47 I suggest that a pedestrian and Response 47: The Grand Union Canal is in very close proximity to the proposed Old Oak Common cycling route should be Lane station and is already bridged over by Old Oak Common Lane. TfL would work with the Local provided linking Old Oak Highway Authority to investigate measures to increase pedestrian and cycle safety on the route Common Lane station with between the proposed station forecourt and the canal access. the Grand Union Canal.

Page 23

5. Issues raised about the potential Hythe Road station

Ref Main issues raised

48 I suggest creating a connection with the West Coast Mainline at the proposed Hythe Road Overground station 49 I suggest routing trains from Richmond through new platforms at Willesden Junction if Hythe Road Overground station is not constructed 50 I am concerned that the proposed Hythe Road station will be located too far from HS2/Elizabeth line station to provide effective interchange 51 I am concerned that the green area will be negatively affected by the proposals 52 I am concerned that the proposals will destroy existing community 53 I am concerned that jobs will be lost as a result of the proposals 54 I suggest that retail outlets are also provided in the station development 55 I suggest that the Hythe Road station features a connection to the potential Gatwick- Milton Keynes line 56 I suggest that the Hythe Road station features passive provision for a future connection with services 57 I am concerned that the proposals do not provide adequate connectivity between modes and services given the scale of the plans 58 I am concerned that the structural integrity of road bridges on Scrubs Lane will not be sufficient to handle an increase in road traffic 59 I suggest locating Hythe Road station further south 60 I suggest that all platforms at Hythe Road station allow for train reversal in both directions 61 I suggest an alternative station location at Scrubs Lane to accommodate the Southern Railway service to Milton Keynes 62 I suggest an alternative station location at the embankment on Scrubs Lane 63 I suggest an alternative station location south of the junction between rail branches, towards Central and Willesden Junction High Level 64 I suggest building terminating platforms for trains to and from Clapham Junction alongside the Elizabeth line platforms

Page 24

Ref Main issues raised

65 I suggest a connection from Clapham Junction to Great Western Old Oak Common, with a further loop to Willesden Junction or line 66 I suggest that Hythe Road station features three platforms instead of two, to allow creation of passive provision for Willesden Junction bound trains 67 I suggest that the proposals provide a link to Acton Central 68 I am concerned that the Hythe Road station is too close to Willesden Junction station 69 I am concerned that travel times from Willesden Junction to Clapham Junction and Shepherds Bush/Olympia will increase 70 I am concerned over the route due to gradient between Mitre Bridge Junction and Willesden Junction High Level 71 I am concerned that the turn-back service at Hythe Road station is of limited benefit to passengers 72 I suggest that further information is provided on where Hythe Road station will appear on the Overground map 73 I suggest that an interchange with the should be considered 74 I am concerned that the details on the design of the wider area have not been forthcoming from Old Oak Park Royal Development Corporation 75 I am concerned that the interchange between services will be out of station 76 I oppose construction of a viaduct 77 I suggest the renaming of the station 78 I suggest providing a cycling and walking link between Hythe Road station and the Grand Union Canal

Page 25

Table 5.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Hythe Road station

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

48 I suggest creating a connection Response 48: Hythe Road station will be served by London Overground services which call at with the West Coast Mainline Willesden Junction station, one station to the north, providing interchange with London at the proposed Hythe Road Overground services between London Euston and Watford Junction on the WCML. The new Overground station. station would also provide an interchange with the new HS2 line which parallels the WCML to the south as well as connection to Elizabeth line and National Rail services.

49 I suggest routing trains from Response 49; It is not proposed that services from Richmond would serve Hythe Road station. Richmond through new Either with or without Hythe Road station, current services on the NLL from Richmond would still platforms at Willesden operate and would continue to serve Willesden Junction station and the new Old Oak Common Junction if Hythe Road Lane station. Overground station is not constructed.

50 I am concerned that the Response 50: The proposed Hythe Road station is located as close as possible to the planned proposed Hythe Road station HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station. The interchange distance between the two stations is will be located too far from approximately 700 metres. We are working closely with HS2 and OPDC to ensure that a high HS2/Elizabeth line station to quality pedestrian link can be provided between the stations. Both the station and interchange provide effective interchange. links would be designed to comply with the latest accessibility standards and existing legal requirements upon TfL. Please also refer to Response 20.

51 I am concerned that the Response 51: Both Hythe Road station and Old Oak Common Lane proposed station locations are Wormwood Scrubs green area located a considerable distance from Wormwood Scrubs. It is highly unlikely that TfL would require will be negatively affected by any of this land for a worksite, and the permanent station proposals do not impact on the the proposals. Wormwood Scrubs at all.

52 I am concerned that the Response 52: The proposal would increase the access levels enjoyed by the local community proposals will destroy existing through better and faster connectivity to the surrounding areas. No residential properties are community. required to deliver this project and the stations will be built on existing railway infrastructure already served by frequent rail services.

Page 26

Table 5.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Hythe Road station

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

53 I am concerned that jobs will Response 53: The OPDC estimates that 65,000 jobs will be created through its Local Plan and the be lost as a result of the new station would increase the likelihood of new employers locating to the area due to the proposals. improved connectivity.

54 I suggest that retail outlets are Response 54: The provision of retail and potential other uses within the proposed Hythe Road also provided in the station station has been examined as part of design work. Any further design work would be undertaken in development. line with TfL’s commercial strategy and would be subject to further public consultation. Please also refer to Response 9.

55 I suggest that the Hythe Road Response 55: Any train service between Milton Keynes and would utilise a station features a connection different set of tracks to those proposed for Hythe Road station. As such, the station would need to the potential Gatwick- to be relocated to serve trains between Milton Keynes and Gatwick. This does not form part of the Milton Keynes line. current proposal as such a station would be unable to accommodate London Overground services.

56 I suggest that the Hythe Road Response 56: The are currently investigating provision for a Chiltern Line station features passive connection as part of the HS2 station design. Such an interchange at the proposed Hythe Road provision for a future station is currently not being investigated. connection with Chiltern Railways services.

57 I am concerned that the Response 57: The proposed Hythe Road station is located within walking distance of the planned proposals do not provide HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station at Old Oak. It would provide a one-stop connection to the adequate connectivity and other London Overground services at Willesden Junction and to the Central line between modes and services at Shepherds Bush. TfL and the OPDC are also in the process of designing a Bus Strategy for the given the scale of the plans. area which will interlink to the project.

Page 27

Table 5.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Hythe Road station

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

58 I am concerned that the Response 58: Scrubs Lane is an existing busy main road which is considered to be structurally structural integrity of road sound. It continues to safely carry traffic including heavy goods vehicles. The Old Oak and Park bridges on Scrubs Lane will not Royal Development Corporation’s local plan contains polices to restrict vehicle movements be sufficient to handle an through Old Oak North area. Please also refer to Response 1. increase in road traffic

59 I suggest locating Hythe Road Response 59: Locating the proposed station to the south would mean that the station would be station further south. less able to serve the Old Oak area and would reduce the ease of interchange to the planned HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station. Please also refer to Response 55.

60 I suggest that all platforms at Response 60: The station has been designed to reflect current and future services planned for the Hythe Road station allow for area when the station opens. The provision of the third platform allows for train reversing in both train reversal in both directions. directions.

61 I suggest an alternative station Response 61: Locating the station to the south, adjacent to Scrubs Lane is not preferred as this location at Scrubs Lane to would mean that the station would be significantly less able to serve the Old Oak area and would accommodate the Southern reduce the ease of interchange to the planned HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station. Please also Railway service to Milton refer to Response 55, Response 59 and Response 168. Keynes.

62 I suggest an alternative station Response 62: Please refer to Response 61. location at the embankment on Scrubs Lane.

Page 28

Table 5.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Hythe Road station

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

63 I suggest an alternative station Response 63: The cost and complexity of such a scheme would make it unfeasible and would not location south of the junction achieve the scheme objective which is to link communities in west London served by the London between rail branches, Overground to the HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station at Old Oak and support growth in the towards Wembley Central and Old Oak area. Willesden Junction High Level.

64 I suggest building terminating Response 64: Such a proposal would not serve London Overground services on the West London platforms for trains to and line or Southern services between Clapham Junction and Milton Keynes and thus would add from Clapham Junction relatively little additional connectivity. Please also refer to Response 164. alongside the Elizabeth line platforms.

65 I suggest a connection from Response 65: The proposed station at Hythe Road provides connections to Willesden Junction, Clapham Junction to Great Clapham Junction and then via an interchange to many more destinations. An interchange will be Western Old Oak Common, available to Elizabeth line Great Western at the planned Old Oak Common HS2/Elizabeth with a further loop to line/National rail station. No rail services currently run between the Old Oak area and Willesden Junction or Cricklewood. However, separate plans for a West London Orbital service are under consideration Cricklewood line. by TfL. As such, an infrastructure solution providing new rail links between these routes is not considered necessary. Please also refer to Response 1 and Response 64.

66 I suggest that Hythe Road Response 66: The third platform provides an option to turn back Southern services that currently station features three terminate at Shepherds Bush. Two platforms will provide less operational flexibility for services platforms instead of two, to than three platforms, however this arrangement would still allow for London Overground services allow creation of passive to Willesden Junction. provision for Willesden Junction bound trains.

Page 29

Table 5.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Hythe Road station

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

67 I suggest that the proposals Response 67: A direct link to Acton Central from Hythe Road station would be provided via an provide a link to Acton interchange at Willesden Junction. Acton Central would also be served directly from Old Oak Central. Common Lane station. Hythe Road station is also proposed to be located within walking distance of the planned HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station at Old Oak which would provide direct services to Acton Mainline station. Please also refer to Response 57.

68 I am concerned that the Hythe Response 68: Operationally there is no issue with the location of the proposed station relative to Road station is too close to Willesden Junction station. If built, the stations would be no closer together than many other Willesden Junction station. stations on the London Overground network. Furthermore, the location of the proposed Hythe Road station is intended to best serve the planned Old Oak North development area and provide as close a link as possible from the West London line to the planned HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station. Please also refer to Response 3 and Response 16.

69 I am concerned that travel Response 69: It is expected that there would be some increase in travel time between Willesden times from Willesden Junction Junction and stations to the south, although this would be limited in nature as only one additional to Clapham Junction and stop is involved and we expect the overall benefits in travel time as a result of the new station to Shepherds Bush/Olympia will outweigh any disbenefit. increase.

70 I am concerned over the route Response 70: Existing rail services already use the route with no recorded technical difficulty and due to gradient between Mitre design work to date has shown that a station in this area is feasible. Bridge Junction and Willesden Junction High Level.

71 I am concerned that the turn- Response 71: The scheme would provide additional capacity and connectivity in the peak period back service at Hythe Road with direct services to East Croydon and other stations including Common, is of limited benefit to , Norbury, Thornton Heath and Selhurst. passengers.

Page 30

Table 5.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Hythe Road station

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

72 I suggest that further Response 72: This is a matter that would be confirmed nearer to the time of opening. information is provided on where Hythe Road station will appear on the Overground map.

73 I suggest that an interchange Response 73: Hythe Road station would be served by London Overground services which call at with the West Coast Main line Willesden Junction station one station to the north, providing interchange with London should be considered. Overground services between London Euston and Watford Junction on the WCML. The new station would also provide an interchange with the new HS2 which parallels the WCML to the south.

74 I am concerned that the details Response 74: The design of the local area is the responsibility of many parties. The OPDC is on the design of the wider area providing a planning framework and vision for the local area and this is set out in its draft local plan have not been forthcoming and supporting documents. The OPDC will also be producing Supplementary Planning Guidance, from Old Oak Park Royal which will also be consulted on, and will also steer future development planning applications. Development Corporation. Please also refer to Response 38.

75 I am concerned that the Response 75: Future consultations would provide more detail on proposed connectivity measures interchange between services between the stations in the Old Oak area. will be out of station.

76 I oppose construction of a Response 76: The provision of a viaduct is a key part of the proposed Hythe Road station. Further viaduct. to it’s role as part of the station; providing access for local residents to frequent and reliable London Overground services, it would allow access under the railway to the planned development sites to the north of the current embankment, which otherwise would be severed from the surrounding area.

Page 31

Table 5.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Hythe Road station

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

77 I suggest the renaming of the Response 77: This matter is outside the scope of this consultation. Naming of the stations would station. be considered nearer the time of opening.

78 I suggest providing a cycling Response 78: The design of the local area including proposed walking and cycling links is the and walking link between responsibility of the OPDC. More detail on their plans can be found in the OPDC’s draft Local Plan Hythe Road station and the which was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for independent examination on 4 October Grand Union Canal. 2018. Please also refer to Response 75.

Page 32

6. Issues raised about the consultation process

Ref Main issues raised

79 I am concerned that local residents have not been adequately consulted 80 I am concerned that a failure to consult on alternative options to the proposals will be unlawful 81 I am concerned that residents of flats on Midland Terrace have not been adequately consulted 82 I am concerned that the proposals offered for consultation do not align with local development principles 83 I suggest that TfL provides alternative options for formative consultation 84 I suggest that the consultation page should have included a cost benefit analysis of the various options 85 I suggest that more information is provided on proposal's impact on Willesden Traction Maintenance Depot 86 I suggest that more detailed station designs are provided

Page 33

Table 6.1: Responses to Issues Raised about the Consultation Process

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

79 I am concerned that local Response 79: Local residents were contacted with a leaflet to addresses in the area around the residents have not been proposed stations. Local public transport users were contacted via an email if they have registered adequately consulted. their with TfL. There was local advertising in newspapers and online. Meetings also took place with resident associations in the area to promote the consultation prior to the start date.

80 I am concerned that a failure Response 80: TfL have previously consulted on different options for the station locations in 2014. to consult on alternative The 2014 consultation provided us with information that informed the development of preferred options to the proposals will location options. The 2017 consultation sought views on these possible locations. Options for be unlawful. station design and local infrastructure would be carried out at a later date in the project cycle.

81 I am concerned that residents Response 81: As part of the 2017 consultation, residents on Midland Terrace were contacted with of flats on Midland Terrace a leaflet to inform them of the consultation. There was also local advertising in newspapers and have not been adequately online. Meetings took place with residents’ associations in the area to promote the consultation consulted. prior to the start date. Please also refer to Response 79.

82 I am concerned that the Response 82: We are working in partnership with the OPDC to ensure that the proposals are in line proposals offered for with their Local Plan and emerging Supplementary Planning Guidance, as well as the Mayor’s consultation do not align with Transport Strategy and London Plan. As the scheme design develops further, we will continue to local development principles. work with the OPDC and other stakeholders to make sure that stations are in line with local development principles.

83 I suggest that TfL provides Response 83: TfL have previously consulted on a number of different options for the station alternative options for locations in 2014. The 2014 consultation provided us with information that informed the formative consultation. development of preferred location options. Please also refer to Response 80.

Page 34

Table 6.1: Responses to Issues Raised about the Consultation Process

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

84 I suggest that the consultation Response 84: The costs and benefits of the scheme were presented as part of the public page should have included a consultation. The outcome from this consultation will be an important part of the business case cost benefit analysis of the for the proposal, and this will be updated as the plans develop. various options.

85 I suggest that more Response 85: This proposal does not impact upon the Willesden Traction Maintenance Depot. information is provided on proposal's impact on Willesden Traction Maintenance Depot.

86 I suggest that more detailed Response 86: More detailed designs will be developed as part of the next stage of work. This will station designs are provided. be informed by the response to this consultation and the updated designs would be consulted on at the next stage of consultation.

Page 35

7. Issues raised about environmental impacts

Ref Main issues raised

87 I am concerned over the impact of the proposals on local wildlife and habitats 88 I am concerned about noise during the construction phase 89 I am concerned over the impact of proposals on trees 90 I suggest that the stations are environmentally friendly 91 I am concerned about poor air quality around the proposed sites 92 I am concerned about noise from the new rail lines 93 I suggest that existing environmental problems need to be addressed 94 I suggest that more trees are provided with the stations to improve air quality locally 95 I suggest that the relevant agencies work together to maximise sustainability of the proposals 96 I suggest that the station buildings feature solar power 97 I suggest that the proposals include charging points for electric vehicles 98 I support the proposals due to the limited impact on historic buildings 99 I suggest that any new rail lines are built underground to minimise noise 100 I am concerned over noise pollution affecting local residents if Old Oak Common Lane station is built 101 I suggest that the station features nesting/breeding facilities for local species such as bats and swifts

102 I am concerned about the increase in noise on Midland Terrace if a station entrance constructed there

Page 36

Table 7.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Potential Environmental Impacts

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

87 I am concerned over the Response 87: Under these proposals, new stations would be constructed along the North London impact of the proposals on Line and West London Line, utilising the existing railways. The proposed West London Line local wildlife and habitats. station is partly located within a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). As such, there is potential to affect flora and fauna, which may include protected species such as bats, reptiles and badgers. Impacts could be mitigated by compensating, replacement or enhancement as well as management of the remaining SINC area to support species and improve its quality. Other mitigation could include replacement roost sites, sensitive lighting, undertaking vegetation clearance outside of the breeding bird season, incorporating bird boxes onto retained trees and capturing and transferring reptiles or great crested newts to a suitable receptor sites. These effects and any proposed mitigation measures would be the subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment.

88 I am concerned about noise Response 88: Activities during the construction phase such as demolition, construction and lorry during the construction phase. movements are likely to generate noise and vibration which would impact upon local residents. The construction of the proposed station along the North London Line would temporarily change the surrounding noise environment, including likely disruption to the residential properties backing onto the railway. The construction noise associated with the West London Line station would be within an area characterised by commercial/ industrial uses and temporary construction noise is likely to cause only minimal disturbance to these properties. These would be temporary and a Construction Environmental Management Plan would be implemented and mitigation applied to minimise the effects. Mitigation could include the use of acoustic enclosures or portable screens surrounding construction sites, use of mains electricity rather than generators where practicable and fitting of acoustic dampening where possible.

Page 37

Table 7.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Potential Environmental Impacts

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

89 I am concerned over the Response 89: The proposed West London Line Station would be located along the existing railway, impact of proposals on trees. the sides of which are located partly within a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). Construction of the station along this narrow section of elevated track could require removal of trackside scrub, trees and grassland during construction. Mitigation could involve planting along railway embankment to improve the grassland habitat. Post construction, all areas of habitat previously removed would be replaced and where possible enhanced. These effects and any proposed mitigation measures would be subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment.

90 I suggest that the stations are Response 90: Further design would incorporate sustainable design principles such as the use of environmentally friendly. sustainable materials and opportunities for water and energy efficiency.

91 I am concerned about poor air Response 91: Trains will be electrified and freight trains would not be idling at the proposed quality around the proposed stations. The provision of a new station would be expected to lead to a mode shift to rail for some sites. private vehicle trips, which could provide air quality benefit. Construction would be carried out in accordance with an agreed Construction Management Plan to mitigate air pollution during implementation of the scheme. Mitigation could include damp down and dust or pollutants with water, ensuring a clean and tidy site and effective storage of materials. Monitoring would be in place during construction to ensure that the mitigation is effective.

Page 38

Table 7.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Potential Environmental Impacts

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

92 I am concerned about noise Response 92: The project would introduce more trains to the network (not new rail lines); however from the new rail lines. these are expected to be electrified and less intrusive than engine powered trains. Increases in noise could occur from increased pedestrian flow through the station and operational plant. Construction would be carried out in accordance with an agreed Construction Environment Management Plan to mitigate noise pollution during implementation of the scheme. Mitigation of potential noise impacts associated with the station would be addressed by design measures and operating procedures. Screening would be provided alongside the station where required and a well-designed public address system would be installed. Where there are detrimental effects, mitigation would be implemented as part of the scheme such as the use of ballast mats, track/ check rail lubrication and noise barriers.

93 I suggest that existing Response 93: Design measures would incorporate mitigation to reduce the cumulative existing and environmental problems need proposed impacts. to be addressed.

94 I suggest that more trees are Response 94: Mitigation would involve planting along railway embankment to improve the provided with the stations to grassland habitat. Post construction, all areas of habitat previously removed would be replaced and improve air quality locally. where possible enhanced.

95 I suggest that the relevant Response 95: Further design would incorporate sustainable design principles such as the use of agencies work together to sustainable materials and opportunities for water and energy efficiency. Please also refer to maximise sustainability of the Response 1. proposals.

96 I suggest that the station Response 96: Further design would incorporate sustainable design principles including buildings feature solar power. opportunities for energy efficiency.

Page 39

Table 7.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Potential Environmental Impacts

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

97 I suggest that the proposals Response 97: Noted. This aspect will be looked into as part of further design. include charging points for electric vehicles.

98 I support the proposals due to Response 98: Noted. the limited impact on historic buildings.

99 I suggest that any new rail lines Response 99: The project would introduce more trains to the network (not new rail lines); however are built underground to these are expected to be electrified and less intrusive than engine powered trains. Increases in minimise noise. noise could occur from increased pedestrian flow through the station and operational plant. Construction would be carried out in accordance with an agreed Construction Environment Management Plan to mitigate noise pollution during implementation of the scheme. Mitigation of potential noise impacts associated with the station would be addressed by design measures and operating procedures. Screening would be provided alongside the station where required and a well-designed public address system would be installed. Where there are detrimental effects, mitigation would be implemented as part of the scheme such as the use of ballast mats, track/ check rail lubrication and noise barriers.

Page 40

Table 7.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Potential Environmental Impacts

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

100 I am concerned over noise Response 100: The project would introduce more trains to the network (not new rail lines); pollution affecting local however these are expected to be electrified and less intrusive than engine powered trains. residents if Old Oak Common Increases in noise could occur from increased pedestrian flow through the station and operational Lane station is built. plant. Construction would be carried out in accordance with an agreed Construction Environment Management Plan to mitigate noise pollution during implementation of the scheme. Mitigation of potential noise impacts associated with the station would be addressed by design measures and operating procedures. Screening would be provided alongside the station where required and a well-designed public address system would be installed. Where there are detrimental effects, mitigation would be implemented as part of the scheme such as the use of ballast mats, track/ check rail lubrication and noise barriers.

101 I suggest that the station Response 101: Noted. This aspect will be looked into as part of further design. features nesting/breeding facilities for local species such as bats and swifts. [Station not identified].

102 I am concerned about the Response 102: Increases in noise could occur from increased pedestrian flow through the station increase in noise on Midland and operational plant. Terrace if a station entrance constructed there. Construction would be carried out in accordance with an agreed Construction Environment Management Plan to mitigate noise pollution during implementation of the scheme. Mitigation of potential noise impacts associated with the station would be addressed by design measures and operating procedures. Screening would be provided alongside the station where required and a well-designed public address system would be installed. Where there are detrimental effects, mitigation would be implemented as part of the scheme such as the use of ballast mats, track/ check rail lubrication and noise barriers.

Page 41

8. Issues raised about construction impacts

Ref Main issues raised

103 I am concerned about disruption for local residents during the construction phase 104 I am concerned that the construction will negatively impact on local business 105 I suggest that the construction does not take place during peak times 106 I suggest that the construction work does not take place at night 107 I suggest that the local residents are provided with a detailed impact report on construction 108 I am concerned about road closures during the construction phase 109 I suggest that all rail construction work should be completed before the construction of residential accommodation at the HS2/ Elizabeth line station 110 I am concerned that plans are too heavily influenced by those attempting to minimise disruption during construction 111 I suggest that the interchange between lines/services must be covered or sheltered from adverse weather 112 I suggest that the passenger interchange is facilitated by 113 I suggest that the station(s) are made accessible to people with mobility needs

Page 42

Table 8.1: Responses to issues Raised about Potential Construction Impacts

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

103 I am concerned about Response 103: More detailed construction plans developed at the next stage would support the disruption for local residents production of a Code of Construction Practice (COCP) which would demonstrate how the project during the construction phase. would manage the effects of construction on local residents, local businesses and the environment.

Construction for the new stations would have to be coordinated with construction plans of both HS2 and the OPDC Developments to reduce combined construction impacts in the area.

104 I am concerned that the Response 104: More detailed construction plans developed at the next stage would support the construction will negatively production of a Code of Construction Practice (COCP) which would demonstrate how the project impact on local business. would manage the effects of construction on local residents, local businesses and the environment.

Construction for the new stations would have to be coordinated with construction plans of both HS2 and the OPDC Developments to reduce combined construction impacts in the area.

105 I suggest that the construction Response 105: TfL would consult on work timings in a later consultation, although it is certain that does not take place during some work would require possession of the railway at certain times to enable those parts of the peak times. project that interface directly with the railway lines to be completed as quickly as possible.

106 I suggest that the construction Response 106: More detailed construction plans developed at the next stage would support the work does not take place at production of a Code of Construction Practice (COCP) which would demonstrate how the project night. would manage the effects of construction on local residents, local businesses and the environment.

This would include consideration of how night working can be reduced if possible or if night work is critical would determine appropriate mitigations to reduce impact of night work on the local area.

Page 43

Table 8.1: Responses to issues Raised about Potential Construction Impacts

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

107 I suggest that the local Response 107: More detailed construction plans developed at the next stage would support the residents are provided with a production of a Code of Construction Practice (COCP) which would demonstrate how the project detailed impact report on would manage the effects of construction on local residents, local businesses and the construction. environment.

The COCP would be required to be submitted as part of the Planning Application for the works which would be available to the public.

108 I am concerned about road Response 108: More detailed construction plans developed at the next stage would support the closures during the production of a Code of Construction Practice (COCP) which would demonstrate how the project construction phase. would manage the effects of construction on local residents, local businesses and the environment.

These plans would look to reduce as much as possible disruption and/or closures to local roads as possible to ensure local roads are only disrupted and/or closed to support critical works which can only be delivered through such an impact. We would also work closely with the HS2/Elizabeth line station project to minimise disruption.

109 I suggest that all rail Response 109: The HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station complex is planned to be completed in construction work should be 2026 and TfL would like to complete both Old Oak Common Lane station and Hythe Road station completed before the by that date. construction of residential accommodation at the HS2/ Elizabeth line station

Page 44

Table 8.1: Responses to issues Raised about Potential Construction Impacts

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

110 I am concerned that plans are Response 110: Detailed construction staging plans would look to ensure that construction works too heavily influenced by are delivered as efficiently as possible (without compromising safety) to ensure that the overall those attempting to minimise timescales for construction works do not drag out increasing long term disruption to the local disruption during construction. community but also to the railway itself, which would in turn increase scheme cost. Please also refer to Response 105.

111 I suggest a shorter timescale Response 114: Detailed construction staging plans would look to ensure that construction works for completion. are delivered as efficiently as possible (without compromising safety) to ensure that the overall timescales for construction works do not drag out increasing long term disruption to the local community. However we would need to work within the constraints of when the project would have possession of the railway to undertake the construction works. Please also refer to Response 105.

112 I suggest that the station Response 115: The final designs of the stations would be subject to further work which will be designs should be sympathetic subject to public consultation before any construction was to commence. to the industrial heritage of the area.

113 I am concerned that the local Response 116: More detailed construction plans developed at the next stage would support the pedestrian routes may be production of a Code of Construction Practice (COCP) which would demonstrate how the project affected because of site would manage the effects of construction on local residents, local businesses and the works. environment.

These plans would look to reduce as much as possible disruption and/or closures to local pedestrian routes. We would work as closely as possible with the HS2/Elizabeth line station project to ensure local pedestrian routes are only disrupted and/or closed to support critical works which can only be delivered through such an impact.

Page 45

9. Issues raised about potential economic impacts

Ref Main issues raised

114 I am concerned that the residents will suffer financially as a result of the proposals 115 I suggest utilising Willesden Junction station rather than constructing two new stations 116 I am concerned that Brexit threatens the scheme’s funding 117 I suggest that the funding should be used to upgrade existing stations and/or lines 118 I suggest that selling the air rights for all stations is included in the proposal 119 I suggest that the housing developers in the Old Oak Common Lane area contribute towards new transport infrastructure in the area 120 I suggest that the funding should be used to upgrade existing stations and/or lines 121 I suggest that the proposals are funded by HS2 Ltd 122 I suggest that CarGiant should contribute funding for the proposals 123 I am concerned that the local residents will not receive compensation for the impacts of the proposals 124 I am concerned over the use of Compulsory Purchase Orders for local homes 125 I am concerned that the proposals will negatively affect local businesses 126 I am concerned about an increase in insurance costs for Midland Terrace residents 127 I am concerned that about an increase in litter on Midland Terrace if the station entrance is constructed there

Page 46

Table 9.1: Responses to issues Raised about Potential Economic impacts

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

114 I am concerned that the Response 114: These proposals are in the early stages and currently no residential or commercial residents will suffer financially properties are proposed for Compulsory Purchase. However, if there is a need for any as a result of the proposals. compensation process related to the development, this would be designed and offered at the appropriate time.

115 I suggest utilising Willesden Response 115: This would not deliver the direct interchange between the London Overground and Junction station rather than the HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail services that this proposal would enable. Please also refer to constructing two new stations. Response 4.

116 I am concerned that Brexit Response 116: Funding for this scheme would be sourced as for any other transport scheme. This threatens the scheme’s would be likely to include some developer contribution as well as potential public sector funding. resources, subject to funding and financing available at that time.

117 I suggest that the funding Response 117: The London Overground has already delivered a substantial upgrade in the quality should be used to upgrade of train stock, station environment and service frequency on both the West London line and North existing stations and/or lines. London line, and this scheme would further add to the increasing connectivity of the London Overground to the wider National Rail network and support the delivery of a major growth area in line with the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.

118 I suggest that selling the air Response 118: This scheme would be delivered in line with TfL's commercial development rights for all stations is priorities in the TfL Business Plan. included in the proposal.

119 I suggest that the housing Response 119: Community Infrastructure Levy tariffs, and Section 106 funding from developers, developers in the Old Oak which are collected by Local Authorities, are a standard means of part-funding transport schemes, Common Lane area contribute towards new transport infrastructure in the area.

Page 47

Table 9.1: Responses to issues Raised about Potential Economic impacts

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

120 I suggest that the funding Response 120: The HS2 station which these stations would complement and interchange with should be used to upgrade would serve this purpose, proving high speed services to Birmingham and northwards. existing stations and/or lines.

121 I suggest that the proposals Response 121: We are currently investigating potential funding sources for the proposed stations are funded by HS2 Ltd. and continue to work closely with HS2 as we do this. Please also refer to Response 119.

122 I suggest that CarGiant should Response 122: We are currently investigating potential funding sources for the proposed stations contribute funding for the and continue to work closely with CarGiant and their development partner as we do this. Please proposals. also refer to Response 119.

123 I am concerned that the local Response 123: Please refer to Response 114. residents will not receive compensation for the impacts of the proposals.

124 I am concerned over the use of Response 124: Please refer to Response 114. Compulsory Purchase Orders for local homes.

125 I am concerned that the Response 125: TfL would design the scheme to mitigate any effects to local businesses. Please proposals will negatively affect also refer to Response 114. local businesses.

126 I am concerned about an Response 126: Whether insurance premiums increase or indeed reduce is a matter for market increase in insurance costs for forces and in the current competitive insurance market we would encourage those with concerns Midland Terrace residents. to seek a range of quotations.

Page 48

Table 9.1: Responses to issues Raised about Potential Economic impacts

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

127 I am concerned that about an Response 127: TfL would ensure that appropriate provision were made to remove litter from the increase in litter on Midland proposed station and would work with the Local Highway Authority to provide mitigation to ensure Terrace if the station entrance that the station did not result in an increase in litter in the local area. is constructed there.

Page 49

10. Issues raised that were out of scope

Ref Main issues raised

128 The proposals must provide housing 129 I suggest that the proposals include a new stadium for Queens Park Rangers 130 The proposals must provide affordable housing 131 I suggest that the proposals also include a hospital 132 I suggest that the proposals include a new stadium for Queens Park Rangers 133 I suggest adopting technology to allow up to 30 trains per hour to run on Overground lines and increase frequency and capacity on the line 134 I suggest that a rail bridge is created across Euston mainline with a chord joining the Bakerloo and Overground route 135 I suggest the creation of a cycle route through Wormwood Scrubs 136 I suggest the creation of a Cycle Superhighway to Old Oak Common Lane

Page 50

Table 10.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Out of Scope Issues

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

128 The proposals must provide Response 128: The proposed London Overground stations would themselves not directly deliver housing. new housing. They would however support and enable the delivery of new housing by others and are a key enabler of the OPDC’s plans to develop 25,500 new dwellings in the area.

129 The proposals must provide Response 129: The proposed London Overground stations would themselves not directly deliver social housing. new housing including social housing. They would however support and enable the OPDC’s plans to develop 25,500 new dwellings in the area. The OPDC are committed to delivering the Mayor’s overarching target of 50% affordable housing. Please also refer to Response 128.

130 The proposals must provide Response 130: Please refer to Response 129. affordable housing.

131 I suggest that the proposals Response 131: This is a matter for the NHS and the ODPC and is outside the scope of this also include a hospital. scheme.

132 I suggest that the proposals Response 132: This is a commercial matter for Queens Park Rangers and is outside the scope of include a new stadium for this scheme. Queens Park Rangers.

133 I suggest adopting Thameslink Response 133: Such a service level is not currently proposed and is outside the scope of this technology to allow up to 30 project. The proposed stations could potentially serve a greater frequency of service if this were to trains per hour to run on be introduced on the North and West London lines respectively although this could be dependent Overground lines and increase of signalling and/or other improvements. frequency and capacity on the line.

Page 51

Table 10.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Out of Scope Issues

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

134 I suggest that a rail bridge is Response 134: Such a rail bridge at this location is outside the scope of this scheme. Please also created across Euston refer to Response 165. mainline with a chord joining the Bakerloo and Overground route.

135 I suggest the creation of a Response 135: This proposal falls outside the objectives of this scheme. There are no current cycle route through proposals for a Cycle Superhighway in this area. Wormwood Scrubs.

136 I suggest the creation of a Response 136: This proposal falls outside the objectives of this scheme. There are no current Cycle Superhighway to Old proposals for a Cycle Superhighway in this area. Please refer to Response 135. Oak Common Lane.

Page 52

11. Issues raised about potential local road impacts

Ref Main issues raised

137 I am concerned that the shortcomings in passenger interchange in the proposals will push demand from rail onto road 138 I am concerned that the proposals will cause increases in road journey times locally 139 I am concerned that the proposals will increase congestion at the junction of Wood Lane and Du Cane Road 140 I suggest providing improved road connections for north bound traffic to remove bottlenecks 141 I suggest that additional road space is provided to accommodate any increase in vehicle traffic due to the proposals 142 I am concerned about road closures as a result of the proposals

Page 53

Table 11.1: Responses to issues Raised about Potential Local Road Impacts

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

137 I am concerned that the Response 137: The provision of two new stations at Old Oak is expected generate more trips by shortcomings in passenger public transport and reduce the number for trips made by road. This is because the stations would interchange in the proposals provide quicker public transport journeys than would otherwise exist. This likely impact is will push demand from rail consistent with what has been observed following the delivery of other public transport schemes. onto road. Please also refer to Response 38.

138 I am concerned that the Response 138: The provision of two new stations is expected to reduce the number of trips made proposals will cause increases by road and thus would not be expected to increase road journey times. As part of any application in road journey times locally. for permission to build and operate the scheme, TfL would produce a Transport Assessment that will assess the impacts on the highway network arising from the proposal. Please also refer to Response 137.

139 I am concerned that the Response 139: The provision of two new stations is not expected to increase road congestion. proposals will increase Instead it is likely to encourage more trips to be made by public transport which would result in congestion at the junction of less trips being made by road. Please also refer to Response 138. Wood Lane and Du Cane Road.

140 I suggest providing improved Response 140: This proposal falls outside the objectives of this scheme. There are no current road connections for north proposals for changes to connections for northbound traffic. bound traffic to remove bottlenecks.

Page 54

Table 11.1: Responses to issues Raised about Potential Local Road Impacts

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

141 I suggest that additional road Response 141: The provision of two new stations is not expected to increase vehicle traffic on the space is provided to local road network. Instead it is likely to encourage more trips to be made by public transport accommodate any increase in which would result in less trips being made by road. Therefore we do not propose to provide any vehicle traffic due to the additional road space for vehicle traffic. During construction, some additional vehicle movements proposals. will be required. Such necessary movements will be catered for in the construction plan for the stations and this will form part of any TWAO application documents. Please also refer to Response 138.

142 I am concerned about road Response 142: The proposed scheme is not expected to result in any permanent road closures. closures as a result of the Any closures required during construction would be a short as reasonably practicable and would be proposals. subject to a future public consultation. As part of any application for permission to build and operate the scheme, TfL would produce a Transport Assessment that would assess the impacts on the highway network arising from the proposal including any temporary road closures during construction. We would also work closely with the HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station project to minimise disruption.

Page 55

12. Issues raised about impacts on the current transport network

Ref Main issues raised

143 I am concerned that the proposals do not adequately enhance connectivity locally 144 I am concerned that the proposals are aimed at meeting local transport needs rather than wider London transport goals 145 I am concerned that the construction of the new stations will increase journey times on existing National Rail lines 146 I am concerned that the existing local transport network will not be able to cope with the proposals 147 I suggest that the external station realm improvements are planned early to ensure Old Oak’s position as an orbital interchange 148 I suggest that the proposals take a more long term approach to planning and forecasting for the next 50 to 100 years 149 I suggest that the local and national transport bodies and organisations co-operate fully to achieve improved connectivity 150 I suggest that the proposed new rail lines should remove the need for trains to change tracks and so reduce journey times 151 I suggest that the capacity of the Overground trains is increased to meet growth in passenger demand due to the new stations 152 I am concerned that the proposed stations do not adequately address the gap in London Overground provision between Old Oak Common Lane and Shepherds Bush 153 I am concerned over the impact of these proposals to freight services

Page 56

Table 12.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Impacts on the Current Transport Network

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

143 I am concerned that the Response 143: The proposed new stations would provide new connections for local residents to proposals do not adequately north and east London as well as to Richmond from Old Oak Common Lane station and Clapham enhance connectivity locally. Junction and Shepherds Bush from Hythe Road station. The potential bridge between Victoria Road and Old Oak Common Lane would also provide a brand new local link between the Park Royal and Old Oak areas. In addition, the OPDC are developing plans for Old Oak that would create a new centre for West London including many new connections across the area including links to, and between the two potential new Overground stations and the planned HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station. Please also refer to Response 38.

144 I am concerned that the Response 144: This scheme meets both local transport goals and London-wide transport goals, proposals are aimed at and is supported by the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (2018) and draft London Plan (2017), as well as meeting local transport needs the Old Oak & Park Royal Local Plan. All these plans take a long term perspective to the transport rather than wider London needs of , and Old Oak, respectively. transport goals.

145 I am concerned that the Response 145: There would be some impact on London Overground services on the North and construction of the new West London lines due to the extra stop at each of the new stations respectively. However our stations will increase journey assessments show that any delay is marginal and that the benefits to passengers outweigh any times on existing National Rail negative effects caused by the extra journey times lines.

146 I am concerned that the Response 146: TfL/ODPC has carried out a strategic transport study as part of the work developing existing local transport proposals for the regeneration of the Old Oak area. This study identified a range of new and network will not be able to enhanced transport infrastructure likely to be needed to support the proposals, including new and cope with the proposals. upgraded rail stations to serve the area.

Page 57

Table 12.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Impacts on the Current Transport Network

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

147 I suggest that the external Response 147: The station would be designed to best serve both passengers and the local station realm improvements community in both function and design. The illustrations in the consultation are an early outline are planned early to ensure indication as to how the stations might look, and further consultation would be carried out as Old Oak’s position as an design progresses. Further design work would take place as part of the next stage of work. This orbital interchange. would recognise the importance of the station as an interchange and would be subject to further public consultation. The design taken forward to planning permission would be subject to a full Environmental Impact Assessment which would include a Design and Access Statement. Please also refer to Response 25.

148 I suggest that the proposals Response 148: The proposed stations have been designed to accommodate future forecast take a more long term passenger demand, including all movements to and from the station from both the planned Old approach to planning and Oak development and the future HS2/Elizabeth line/National rail station. Please also refer to forecasting for the next 50 to Response 144. 100 years.

149 I suggest that the local and Response 149: TfL and all its partners are committed to working together to deliver significantly national transport bodies and improved transport connectivity to and within the area. organisations co-operate fully to achieve improved connectivity.

150 I suggest that the proposed Response 150: The proposed stations are designed to improve connectivity and reduce journey new rail lines should remove times for local residents and businesses. The provision of two stations on existing lines would the need for trains to change provide significant new journey opportunities for people travelling to and from the local area. No tracks and so reduce journey new lines are planned, although some track layout changes are required from current routes. times.

Page 58

Table 12.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Impacts on the Current Transport Network

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

151 I suggest that the capacity of Response 151: TfL constantly monitors demand across our network and seeks to balance demand the Overground trains is and capacity across all services. We would only introduce the potential new stations if we were increased to meet growth in comfortable that they could be accommodated, within the capacity of the network. The Mayor’s passenger demand due to the Transport Strategy (2018) provides more information on the capacity enhancements that TfL plans new stations. to implement on the transport network. Please also refer to Response 55.

152 I am concerned that the Response 152: The two new proposed stations are intended to serve the Old Oak area; including proposed stations do not providing new links to the planned HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station. From Hythe Road adequately address the gap in station it would provide a direct link between Old Oak and Shepherds Bush. The provision on any London Overground provision additional stations between these two locations is beyond the scope of this project. Please also between Old Oak Common refer to Response 38 and Response 144. Lane and Shepherds Bush.

153 I am concerned over the Response 153: Any impacts on freight services or operators would be subject to the Network impact of these proposals to Change process operated by Network Rail and overseen by the Office of Rail and Road. This is a freight services. regulatory process that would be required to be undertaken should studies show that this impact is demonstrated.

Page 59

13. Issues raised about suggested connections

Ref Main issues raised

154 I suggest that the interchange between lines/services must be covered or sheltered from adverse weather 155 I suggest that the passenger interchange is facilitated by travelators 156 I suggest that the station(s) are made accessible to people with mobility needs 157 I suggest that the proposals should provide a connection to the Central line 158 I suggest that the proposals should provide a connection to the Underground 159 I suggest that Willesden Junction station is redeveloped 160 I suggest the creation of an Overground Station, Westway Circus, at the Westway 161 I suggest a connection between the proposed stations and the Hounslow Loop 162 I suggest implementing a twin track alignment from Northolt to Old Oak Common Lane station to allow access for Chiltern Railways services 163 I suggest the creation of a new east facing bay at Acton Main Line station to increase service capacity on the future Dudding Hill line 164 I suggest that all five of the stations are constructed on top of each other (eg High Level, Low Level, Underground) 165 I suggest that the proposals should provide a connection to the Bakerloo line 166 I suggest that the access to airports is improved in general 167 I suggest that the proposals include a bus route from Acton Central 168 I suggest constructing a further London Overground station at Latimer Road

169 I suggest constructing a station at the former depot on North Pole Road 170 I suggest revitalising the Dudding Hill line to provide even more possibilities for connections in Old Oak Common 171 I suggest that the section of rail between the Acton Wells junctions should feature four tracks to increase service capacity and remove bottlenecks 172 I am concerned that the Old Oak Common Lane and Hythe Road stations are too close together; their locations should be reconsidered 173 I suggest that an alternative station at Mitre Bridge would provide better interchange with the HS2/Elizabeth line than the current proposals

Page 60

Ref Main issues raised

174 I suggest running services from Clapham Junction to Old Oak Common Lane, via Hythe Road 175 I suggest that London Overground services extend beyond West Ealing to Willesden Junction 176 I suggest that that an accessible walking route to Park Royal station would improve access to Old Oak Common Lane from north west London 177 I suggest creating a new branch of the North London Line to create an alternative station west of the proposed Hythe Road site 178 I suggest creating an additional station on the West London Line at Imperial College West Campus on Latimer Road 179 I suggest that the proposed stations are merged to provide one station 180 I suggest that the proposed stations are merged to provide one station 181 I suggest increasing Overground service frequency from Willesden Junction to Bromley South and Orpington via the North London line and West London line

Page 61

Table 13.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Suggested Connections

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

154 I suggest that the interchange Response 154: The design of both the stations includes shelter from adverse or inclement between lines/services must weather. be covered or sheltered from adverse weather.

155 I suggest that the passenger Response 155: There are no proposals for travelators in the proposed scheme. To provide interchange is facilitated by travelators would require additional land take and would add significant cost to the scheme. travelators.

156 I suggest that the station(s) are Response 156: TfL would comply with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 and other legal made accessible to people requirements in design and construction of the stations. with mobility needs.

157 I suggest that the proposals Response 157: The location of the proposed stations is intended to best serve both the planned should provide a connection HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station and the existing and planned communities at Old Oak. to the Central line. Connections to the Central line would be available via Shepherd Bush when travelling from Hythe Road station or via a short walk along Victoria Road if travelling from Old Oak Common Lane station. Please also refer to Response 18.

158 I suggest that the proposals Response 158: Direct connections to services would be provided for should provide a connection passengers using both stations, including at Willesden Junction (Bakerloo line), Shepherds Bush to the Underground. (Central line), , Gunnersbury (both ) and Highbury & Islington (Victoria line). Please also refer to Response 18.

159 I suggest that Willesden Response 159: TfL is working with the OPDC, Network Rail and LB Brent to identify potential Junction station is improvements to Willesden Junction station. redeveloped.

Page 62

Table 13.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Suggested Connections

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

160 I suggest the creation of an Response 160: This would be an additional station between a new Hythe Road station and the Overground Station, Westway existing London Overground station at Shepherds Bush and is not part of the scope of this work. Circus, at the Westway. Please also refer to Response 168.

161 I suggest a connection Response 161: Such a proposal is not part of the scope of this project, which is focussed on the between the proposed provision of two new London Overground stations at Old Oak only. Please refer to Response 1. stations and the Hounslow Loop.

162 I suggest implementing a twin Response 162: This is outside scope of this scheme and would not deliver scheme objectives. track alignment from Northolt Cost and planning issues are likely to make it infeasible to implement. Please also refer to to Old Oak Common Lane Response 56. station to allow access for Chiltern Railways services. HS2 services are planned to also run towards Birmingham on the new HS2 line from 2026 with direct access to these services from Old Oak.

163 I suggest the creation of a new Response 163: Such a proposal is not part of the scope of this project, which is focussed on the east facing bay at Acton Main provision of two new London Overground stations at Old Oak only. Please also refer to Response Line station to increase service 1. capacity on the future Dudding Hill line.

164 I suggest that all five of the Response 164: The locations of the existing rail lines in relation to each other make this infeasible stations are constructed on in cost and engineering terms. top of each other (eg High Level, Low Level, Underground).

Page 63

Table 13.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Suggested Connections

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

165 I suggest that the proposals Response 165: There is existing connectivity via Willesden Junction station which is one station should provide a connection away from either of the two proposed stations. Please also refer to Response 158. to the Bakerloo line.

166 I suggest that the access to Response 166: This is beyond the scope of this scheme however there is connectivity provided via airports is improved in general. connections to exiting networks. For this scheme, the connections for Old Oak residents to in particular, but also all the other key London airports would be substantially improved.

167 I suggest that the proposals Response 167: This proposal is beyond the scope of this scheme which is for the provision of two include a bus route from London Overground stations linked to the forthcoming HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station at Acton Central station. Old Oak.

168 I suggest constructing a further Response 168: This would be an additional station between a new Hythe Road station and the London Overground station at existing London Overground station at Shepherds Bush, and the existing provision of Circle line and Latimer Road. and City line services mean the location is already well served.

169 I suggest constructing a station Response 169: The existing proposal is located very close to the which has at the former Eurostar depot already been subject to upgrading to service the new Intercity Express trains for the Great Western on North Pole Road. Main line.

Page 64

Table 13.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Suggested Connections

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

170 I suggest revitalising the Response 170: Separate proposals for a West London Orbital Line between Hounslow and Hendon Dudding Hill line to provide and/or West Hampstead have been outlined in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (2018). Such a even more possibilities for service would utilise the current freight only, Dudding Hill line that joins the North London line in connections in Old Oak the Old Oak Common Lane area and could include a station at this location. This proposal is Common Lane station. however at a very early stage of development and as such, there is no certainty that it will progress. For this reason a station on the Dudding Hill line does not form part of the current proposals for Old Oak Common Lane station, however the future provision of additional platforms on the Dudding Hill line is not precluded by the existing designs of the station footbridge. Please also refer to Response 1.

171 I suggest that the section of Response 171: This is beyond the scope of the project. Old Oak Common Lane station has been rail between the Acton Wells designed to serve existing and planned service frequencies on the North London line, all of which junctions should feature four can be accommodated through the existing junction at Acton Wells. Please also refer to Response tracks to increase service 1. capacity and remove bottlenecks.

172 I am concerned that the Old Response 172: Operationally there is no issue with the location of the proposed stations relative Oak Common Lane and Hythe to one another. If built, the stations would be no closer together than many other stations on the Road stations are too close London Overground network, and as they different London Overground lines, both would provide together; their locations an important, and independent function in improving connectivity to and from the Old Oak area. should be reconsidered.

173 I suggest that an alternative Response 173: This proposal would mean that North London line services towards Richmond station at Mitre Bridge would could not be served by the proposed scheme. provide better interchange with the HS2/Elizabeth line than the current proposals.

Page 65

Table 13.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Suggested Connections

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

174 I suggest running services from Response 174: The proposed Hythe Road station would not have a direct rail link to the planned Clapham Junction to Old Oak HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station at Old Oak. It is however located within walking distance of Common Lane, via Hythe that station and TfL and the OPDC are also in the process of designing a Bus Strategy for the area Road. which will interlink to the project. Please also refer to Response 57.

175 I suggest that London Response 175: There is no current London Overground service to West Ealing station and no plans Overground services extend to introduce any such services at this time. beyond West Ealing to Willesden Junction.

176 I suggest that that an Response 176: This is outside the scope of this scheme but the OPDC local plan contains accessible walking route to proposals to improve the area. Park Royal station would improve access to Old Oak Common Lane from north west London.

177 I suggest creating a new branch Response 177: This is outside scope of this scheme as it would not deliver the scheme objectives. of the North London Line to Cost and planning issues would likely make it infeasible, whereas the proposed scheme makes the create an alternative station best use of the existing railways infrastructure. west of the proposed Hythe Road site.

178 I suggest creating an additional Response 178: please refer to Response 168. station on the West London Line at Imperial College West Campus on Latimer Road.

Page 66

Table 13.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Suggested Connections

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

179 I suggest that the proposed Response 179: This was assessed at a previous stage and ruled out. More information can be stations are merged to provide found in the responses to issues raised to the 2014 consultation. Please also refer to Response one station. 164.

180 I suggest that rerouting Response 180: This was assessed at a previous stage and ruled out. More information can be London Overground lines found in the responses to issues raised to the 2014 consultation. Please also refer to Response directly to the HS2/Elizabeth 164. line station at Old Oak Common.

181 I suggest increasing Response 181: There is no current direct service via this route and no plans to introduce one. Overground service frequency from Willesden Junction to Services to Bromley South and Orpington are currently subject to the Southeastern franchise rather Bromley South and Orpington than London Overground. via the North London line and West London line.

Page 67

14. Next steps

14.1. Subject to funding being secured and further public consultation we would seek permission to build and operate the proposals via a Transport and Works Act order (TWAO).

14.2. Funding remains a significant constraint in delivering these proposals. We are currently seeking to establish a package of funding that could enable the stations to be delivered by 2026 alongside the new HS2 and Elizabeth line station.

Page 68

Appendix 1: Summary of the proposals for Hythe Road station

A1.1. Hythe Road station would be situated on the West London line about 700 metres from the Old Oak Common station and in one of the largest development sites within the OPDC area. This development site is owned by the company Car Giant and known as Old Oak Park. Car Giant, supported by the property development company London and Regional, is independently proposing a large-scale redevelopment of its land. Figure A.1-1: Legible London view of the potential Hythe Road station below

A1.2. The following options were considered: i 1A - a new London Overground station on the existing railway embankment, including embankment widening where required ii 1B - a new station and railway viaduct to the north of the existing embankment. This option would mean the removal of the existing embankment iii 1C - a new station and railway viaduct to the south of the existing embankment. This option would also mean the removal of the embankment

A1.3. Option 1B is the preferred option as it provides greater opportunity for regeneration and the creation of new spaces that support the wider development. In addition, this option reduces the severance caused by the embankment, making it easier for people to move around the area.

Page 69

Figure A.1-2: Illustrative visualisation of Hythe Road station (1)

Figure A.1-3: Illustrative visualisation of Hythe Road station (2)

Page 70

Figure A.1-4: Illustrative visualisation of Hythe Road station (3)

Page 71

Appendix 2: Summary of the proposals for Old Oak Common Lane station

A2.1. Old Oak Common Lane station would be situated about 350 metres to the west of the HS2 and Elizabeth line station, sitting on the North London line between Old Oak Common Lane and Midland Terrace. This station would provide the most convenient interchange between London Overground, HS2, the Elizabeth line and National Rail services. The location of this station is constrained by other railway lines, roads and residential properties.

A2.2. To the west of Old Oak Common Lane station, there is an aspiration to provide a pedestrian and cycle link, connecting Old Oak Common Lane and Victoria Road. This link would make it easier for people to move around the area as currently the patchwork of railway lines act as a barrier. While a pedestrian / cycle link crossing the railway lines is not essential for the new station, we have included possible provision for such a link in each option as we believe it would be important for opening up the wider area. Figure A.2-1: Legible London view of the potential Old Oak Common Lane station

A2.3. The following options were considered: i 2A - a new station with a sub-surface ticket hall and concourse. This option would include potential for an underpass between Old Oak Common Lane and Victoria Road ii 2B - a new station with an elevated ticket hall and concourse. This option would include potential for a bridge, linking pedestrians and cyclists between Old Oak Common Lane and Victoria Road

Page 72

A2.4. Option 2B is the preferred option as it reduces the level of disruption to the railway during construction and provides better value for money.

Figure A.2-2: Illustrative visualisation of Old Oak Common Lane station (1)

Figure A.2-3: Illustrative visualisation of Old Oak Common Lane station (2)

Page 73

Figure A.2-4: Illustrative visualisation of Old Oak Common Lane station (3)

Page 74

Appendix 3: Summary of the proposals for Victoria Road bridge

A3.1. Although the provision of an overpass to Victoria Road is not a requirement of the potential station, the design would allow for this to be provided, either at the same time as the station or at a later date. The decision to proceed with such a link is not confirmed and would be subject to further review and discussion with local stakeholders including residents, landowners and OPDC.

Figure A.3-1: An illustrative image of Old Oak Common Lane station and possible overpass to Victoria Road

Page 75

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK