Camden Town Station Capacity Upgrade Consultation Report

Proposed Camden Town Station Capacity Upgrade 2nd consultation June –August 2017 Consultation report March 2018

Proposed Camden Town Station Capacity Upgrade 2nd consultation June - August 2017

Consultation report Published March 2018

Contents 1 Summary 4 2 Introduction 6 3 Background to the scheme 7 4 Methodology 9 5 Overview of consultation responses 13 6 Analysis of consultation responses 21 7 Responses from stakeholders 26 8 Next steps 29 Appendix A1 – Question 1 comments 30 Appendix A2 – Question 12 comments 36 Appendix B – Consultation leaflet 38 Appendix C – Leaflet distribution area 45 Appendix D – Pre-consultation engagement letter 46 Appendix E – Email to stakeholders 48 Appendix F – Letter to near neighbours (owners of property) 49 Appendix G – Letter to near neighbours (leaseholders/tenant of property) 51 Appendix H – List of stakeholders consulted 53 Appendix I – Email to Oyster card users 66 Appendix J – Camden Town Library drop-in event poster 67 Appendix K – Press release 68 Appendix L – Public exhibition display boards 71 Appendix M – Questionnaire 81 Appendix O – Demographic monitoring 88 Appendix P - Support and opposition by profile of respondents 91

1 Summary

1.1 In June 2017 we held a nine week public consultation on our proposals to substantially upgrade the capacity of Camden Town station. The consultation ran from 19 June to 18 August 2017.

1.2 This was our second public consultation about upgrading the capacity of the station. We held our first public consultation in October 2015. We had further developed our proposals and sought views on these. We also carried out a separate consultation in January 2017 on the building above and around the proposed new station entrance (we will be applying for separate planning permission for this building from Camden Council).

1.3 Information about the proposals was available online. Members of the public and other stakeholders could give their views either by completing a questionnaire, responding by email or by post. The questionnaire could be completed online or by a paper copy.

1.4 The consultation was supported by a comprehensive marketing campaign:

• Pre-consultation engagement with stakeholders • 20,565 consultation leaflets to local residents and businesses • 1,000 leaflets distributed to local libraries, GP centres, churches and a Citizens Advice Bureau • Emails to 235,464 Oystercard users who had used the station or passed through the station • Emails to respondents to the previous consultations in October 2015 and January 2017 • Letters and emails to local, London wide and national statutory and non- statutory stakeholder groups and individuals • Letters and leaflets to owners of properties who are immediate neighbours of the proposed work site. We also walked around this area and spoke to many businesses about the consultation • Press release • Promotion through Twitter with tweets through @TfL linking to the consultation • Public exhibition over three days, where people could speak to the project team • Ten factsheets available online, or available in paper copy at the exhibition or on request • Leafletting outside Camden Town station on days of the exhibition and a poster at the station • Two afternoon sessions at Camden Town Library where people could meet the project team

1.5 We received 608 responses. 597 were from members of the public and 11 were from stakeholders and interest groups. Of the public responses 538 (90 per cent) were received online, 54 (nine per cent) by paper copy and five (one per cent) by email. There were three duplicate responses which were removed.

1.6 We asked two questions about the proposed capacity upgrade:

1. How strongly do you support or oppose our proposals for improving the capacity at Camden Town? 2. Please let us have any comments about our proposals for improving the capacity at Camden Town station

1.7 97 per cent of respondents supported our proposals (90 per cent strongly supported, seven per cent partially supported).

1.8 Respondents could make several comments when answering the open question. 366 respondents responded to this question. The most frequently mentioned comments were positive and supportive about our proposals, or highlighted concern at the current overcrowding problems at the station. Negative comments about our proposals focussed on the length of time it would take to complete the upgrade.

1.9 Section 6 of the report provides a summary of consultation responses. Appendix A1 provides a full breakdown of comments made to the open ended question.

1.10 We asked for views about the quality of the consultation. 98 per cent of respondents considered the consultation to be very good, good or acceptable.

1.11 We have published a separate report, “Response to issues raised in 2017 Consultation” together with this report on our consultation website. We will contact everyone who responded to the consultation and provided us with an email address to let them know that both reports are available.

1.12 Engagement on the proposals is ongoing. Since the consultation closed in August 2017 we have engaged further with Camden Council and other stakeholders. There is a project email address [email protected] and we continue to respond to requests for information.

1.13 Work on the project continues. We anticipate a third round of consultation later in 2018, on how we build the new station entrance and manage the construction. This is prior to an application for permission to carry out the capacity upgrade through a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO).

1.14 We will produce an overall consultation report, highlighting all the consultation and engagement activities carried out to inform the proposals as part of our TWAO.

2 Introduction

2.1 We are proposing to substantially upgrade the capacity of Camden Town station.

2.2 A possible site for a new station entrance would be on Buck Street, between Camden High Street and Kentish Town Road. It would lead to three new escalators and two lifts. Below ground there would be more space to board, alight and change between trains.

2.3 We carried out a public consultation on the need for a capacity upgrade and our proposals between 19 June and 18 August 2017. The responses we received will be used to inform design and planning work before we carry out a further consultation.

2.4 Subject to support in principle, funding being agreed, further consultation and the proposal being endorsed by the Mayor, we would apply to the Secretary of State for Transport for powers to build the new second entrance and below ground works. This would be through a TWAO.

3 Background to the scheme

3.1 Camden Town is a unique and exciting area with a wide range of passengers using the station. We are keen to deliver an upgrade that will give Camden the station it deserves.

3.2 The need for a capacity upgrade at Camden Town station has been considered for many years. In 2000, we commissioned a study to assess options for a major station capacity upgrade. The resulting scheme required the demolition and redevelopment of an entire urban block surrounded by Camden High Street, Kentish Town Road and Buck Street within the Camden Town Conservation Area. The application to develop the station was unsuccessful in 2004. Although the transport case was accepted, the TWAO was not granted because of concerns regarding the proposed building above and around the new station (the over site development) and the impact on neighbouring residents and businesses.

3.3 The number of people using the station is increasing. Weekday demand has increased by 45 per cent over the last ten years. At peak times and weekends this means more congestion for customers entering and leaving, and those changing trains. We regularly have to restrict entry into or within the station, diverting customers to Chalk Farm or Mornington Crescent to access the Northern line, or sending customers down spiral stairs. The station also needs improving so it can support the vibrant local community and economy.

3.4 By 2021, passenger demand at the station is expected to grow by a further 40 per cent on weekdays. If we do nothing the congestion will get worse.

3.5 The possible new station entrance could be on the site of Hawley Infants School, Buck Street. The school moved to new premises in 2016. We believe this location would best limit the impact construction would have on the local community (see factsheet 1 on the project overview at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/camden-town-upgrade ). Discussions continue with Camden Council to secure this land. We are also talking with the owners of 25 Kentish Town Road to include this property in our proposals.

3.6 The new entrance would lead to three new escalators and two lifts providing step-free access from the street to trains. Below ground there would be more space to board, alight and change between trains. This would in turn enable future capacity benefits on the Northern line.

3.7 The existing station entrance would remain in use with no changes to nearby buildings.

3.8 The station would remain open during busy periods removing the need for frequent crowd control measures.

3.9 This was our second public consultation about upgrading the capacity of the station. We held our first public consultation in October 2015. We had further developed our proposals and sought views on these. We also carried out a separate consultation in January 2017 on the building above and around the proposed new station entrance (we will be applying for separate planning permission from Camden Council). We anticipate carrying out a third consultation in 2018 on how we will build the new entrance and manage the construction impacts.

3.10 The capacity upgrade is part of a large investment programme to transform the Northern line, which includes:

• A 24-hour Night Tube service on Fridays and Saturdays between Morden and High Barnet/Edgware via Charing Cross • A signalling upgrade which has achieved a 20 per cent increase in capacity through central London • Plans to increase capacity and improve stations at Elephant & Castle, Tottenham Court Road and Bank (under construction at the time of writing).

4 Methodology

Scope of consultation 4.1 The consultation was designed to seek views on our updated proposals to substantially upgrade the capacity of Camden Town station.

4.2 We gave particular consideration to residents and businesses around the existing and proposed new station entrances, and customers who use or travel through the station. We also consulted with key local stakeholders including Camden Council. However this did not prevent any stakeholder or member of the public with a view on the proposals from participating in the consultation.

Outside the scope of this consultation 4.3 The following issues were outside the scope of this consultation (although respondents could clearly comment on these and they have been included in our analysis):

• The building above the proposed new station entrance • Ways to improve the public space outside the entrance • Any construction sites, routes or requirements

Consultation objectives 4.4 Public consultation forms part of the guidance on taking schemes through the TWAO process. Consultation enables affected parties to contribute to the development of a project at an early stage, improving the project and avoiding possible objections following submission of an application. This approach is also consistent with our own consultation aspirations and our statutory obligations in other parts of the business. The consultation sought to;

• Provide an update on our proposals for the capacity upgrade of the station and how we have developed the scheme in response to the 2015 consultation • Understand the level of support for our proposals • Identify any significant unknown issues and allow for mitigation where possible • Make clear the decision-making process, timescales, future consultations and next steps • Highlight the channels through which responses to the consultation could be sent, and make participation easy and inclusive • Further inform the design and decision-making process

Consultation tools 4.5 We used a range of methods to ensure that members of the public and stakeholders were aware of the consultation and how they could respond. The consultation was hosted on the online TfL Consultation Portal (Citizens Space).

We made paper copies of the consultation and a questionnaire available on request to anyone who did not have access to the internet (appendix M).

4.6 We carried out a number of promotional activities to support the consultation and let people know how they could participate:

• Pre-consultation engagement with local stakeholders including local councillors, Assembly Member, MP, Resident Associations, Conservation Groups, owners of immediate neighbouring properties and businesses. This included an offer to meet them in advance of the start of the consultation (appendix D). • 20,595 consultation leaflets to addresses in the local area (see appendix B for the leaflet and appendix C for the distribution area) • 1,000 leaflets to local libraries, GP centres, churches and Citizens Advice Bureau • 235,464 emails to Oyster card users who used the station or passed through the station (appendix I) • Emails to respondents to the first consultation about the station capacity upgrade in October 2015 and the over station development in January 2017 • Emails and letters to local, London wide and national statutory and non- statutory stakeholder groups and individuals (appendix E) • Letters and leaflets to owners of properties who are immediate neighbours of the proposed work site. We also walked around this area and spoke to many businesses about the consultation (appendix F, G) • Press release (appendix K) • Promotion through Twitter with tweets through @TfL linking to the consultation • Public exhibition over three days, where people could speak to the project team • Ten factsheets available online at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/camden-town- upgrade, or available in paper copy at the exhibition or on request • Leafleting outside Camden Town station on days of the exhibition and a poster at the station • Two afternoon sessions at Camden Town Library where people could meet the project team (poster advertising sessions appendix J)

4.7 We sent letters to the residents and owners of 25, Kentish Town Road (this is a property adjacent to the proposed worksite). 4.8 The public exhibition was held at the Trinity United Reformed Church, Buck Street, London, NW2 8NJ. The church is opposite the proposed second entrance for the station. 143 people attended the exhibition:

Date and times Numbers attending Thursday 13 July 2017 51 12:00 until 20:00 Friday 14 July 2017 55 12:00 until 20:00 Saturday 15 July 2017 37 11:00 until 16:00

4.9 There were ten display boards at the exhibition (appendix L). 4.10 We held two drop-in sessions at Camden Library on Tuesday 1 August and Thursday 3 August 2017 between 14:00 and 17:00. We spoke with 16 people at the first session and 17 people at the second.

The online survey and questionnaire 4.11 The questions were designed to provide us with: an understanding of how much respondents supported or opposed our proposals to upgrade the capacity of the station; respondents’ key issues, concerns and suggestions. We aimed to capture comments that could be used to inform the development of the project. We wanted to understand the profile of people responding to the consultation and if there were any differences between groups. We also wanted to know how respondents felt about the quality of the consultation. A copy of the questionnaire is included as appendix M.

4.12 The questionnaire had the following questions:

About the proposals 1: How strongly do you support or oppose our proposals for improving the capacity at Camden Town station? (six options) 2: Please let us have any comments about our proposals for improving the capacity at Camden Town station (open question)

About you 3. What is your name? 4. What is your email address? 5. What is your postcode? 6. If you are responding on behalf of an organisation please provide us with the name 7. Which of the following statements best describes how you use Camden Town station? (three options) 8. How often do you use Camden Town station? This could be to enter or exit the station or to change trains between different branches of the Northern line (six options) 9. Profile of respondents (seven options, for example, local resident)

10. How did you hear about this consultation? (seven options) 11. Please tell us what you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.) (first part closed question with five options, second part an open question)

Questions 12-18 asked respondents to answer demographic questions about gender, ethnic group, age, sexual orientation, faith and health problem/disability.

4.13 Responses made using the online survey received an automated acknowledgement. 4.14 We have published a separate report, “Response to the issues raised in the 2017 consultation” together with this report on our consultation website. We will contact everyone who responded to the consultation and provided us with an email address to let them know that both reports are available.

5 Overview of consultation responses

Who responded?

5.1 We received 608 responses, including 11 from stakeholders and interest groups. Of the 597 public responses 538 (90 per cent) of responses were received online, with 54 (nine per cent) received by paper copy and five (one per cent) by email. There were three duplicate responses which were removed. Sections 5 and 6 summarise responses from members of the public. 11 responses were from stakeholders and interest groups. Stakeholder responses are summarised in section 7.

How many people answered each question?

5.2 Not every respondent answered every question. Of the 597 respondents from members of the public:

• 586 responded to Question 1: How strongly do you support or oppose our proposals for improving the capacity at Camden Town? • 366 responded to Question 2: Please let us have any comments about our proposals for improving the capacity at Camden Town station • 580 responded to Question 11: Please tell us what you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.) 5.3 We have excluded the non responses in the tables in sections 5 and 6 of this report for ease of understanding. The tables contain a footnote of the number of non responses.

Type of respondent

5.4 We wanted to understand the type of respondent and their relationship with the proposed scheme. We asked respondents if they were responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group, to provide us with the name. We analysed these responses. We treated responses which appeared to be of a more individual nature rather than on behalf of an organisation as responses from members of the public.

Location of respondents

5.5 490 (45 per cent) of the respondents provided their full or partial home postcode. If a respondent did not provide a full postcode we were unable to include them in the postcode analysis. 454 of these addresses were successfully mapped within the Greater London area. There were 191 responses from the London Borough of Camden. Figure 1 shows the distribution of respondents within the immediate area and figure 2 the distribution within the Greater London area. There was a concentration of responses around Camden Town station and the stations to the north.

Figure 1: Distribution of respondents within the immediate area

Figure 2: Distribution of respondents within the Greater London area

How did respondents hear about the consultation?

5.6 We asked how people had heard about the consultation and figure 3 shows the information channels through which they had heard about it. Over two thirds of all respondents stated they heard about it through an email from TfL.

Figure 3: How respondents heard about the consultation

Base = 582. 15 respondents did not answer this question. 5.7 Other ways of finding out about the consultation included: posters/blog/metro advert (7), word of mouth (5), newsletters/websites (3), resident/neighbourhood associations (3), library (2) and local school (2).

How did respondents use Camden Town station?

5.8 We asked “Which of the following statements best describes how you use Camden Town station?” and people were given three options to choose from:

• To enter or exit the station

• To change trains between different branches of the Northern line

• I do not use the station 5.9 Figure 4 shows that the majority of respondents (65 per cent) entered or exit the station, and 32 per cent of the respondents interchanged at Camden Town station.

Figure 4: “Which of the following statements best describes how you use Camden Town station”?

Base = 578. 19 respondents did not answer this question.

How often do respondents use Camden Town station? 5.10 We asked “How often do you use Camden Town station?” and people were given six options to choose from:

• 5 days a week

• 3 to 4 days a week

• 1 to 2 days a week

• 1 to 3 times a month

• Less than once a month

• I do not use this station

5.11 Most respondents were frequent users of Camden Town station. 28 per cent used Camden Town station one to three times a month. 20 per cent used the station one to two days a week, and 17 per cent used it five or more days a week (figure 5).

Figure 5: “How often do you use Camden Town station”?

Base = 581. 16 respondents did not answer this question.

Reasons for use of the station 5.12 We asked about the profile of the respondents, and people were given seven options to choose from (they could choose more than one option):

• Local resident

• Business owner

• Employed locally

• Visitor to the area

• Commuter

• Not local but interested in the scheme

• Other 5.13 Respondents were most likely to describe themselves as local residents, commuters and visitors to the area (figure 6).

Figure 6: “Which of the following statements best describes how you use Camden Town station?

Base = 578. 19 respondents did not answer this question.

Respondents could choose more than one option, therefore percentages have not been included

Demographic questions 5.14 We asked a number of demographic questions about gender, ethnic group, age, sexual orientation, faith and health problem/ disability. This was to better understand who was responding to consultation and, if the number of respondents was large enough, to see if there was any difference in the level of support for the scheme, or the possible impacts on people. We monitored the profile of respondents in the early stage of the consultation period when most responses are usually received. As a result we sent emails about the consultation to additional women’s groups and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME groups) who were underrepresented in respondents at that time. 5.15 The profile of respondents is set out in appendix O. 5.16 As our proposals would implement step-free access to the station we were particularly interested in the responses from people with a health problem or disability. We asked “Are your day to day activities limited because of a health problem or disability which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months?” People were given four options from which to choose: yes, limited a lot; yes, limited a little; no; prefer not to say. 5.17 The majority of respondents (84 per cent) did not consider their day to day activities were limited (see table 7). However 12 per cent of the respondents felt they had limited activities either a little (9 per cent) or a lot (3 per cent).

Figure 7 “Are your day to day activities limited because of a health problem or disability which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months?”

Base = 562. 35 respondents did not answer this question

6 Analysis of consultation responses

Support for the need for a capacity upgrade

6.1 Question 1 asked “How strongly do you support or oppose our proposals for improving the capacity at Camden Town station?” To understand the level of support, respondents were given six answers from which to choose:

• Strongly support • Partially support • Neither support not oppose • Partially oppose • Strongly oppose • No opinion

6.2 Support for the proposals was high, with 567 respondents (97 per cent) stating that they either strongly or partially supported these. 11 (2 per cent) of respondents stated that they strongly or partially oppose the proposals. 7 (1 per cent) of respondents stated that they neither support nor oppose the proposals. Figure 8 displays the level of support for the scheme.

Figure 8: Support and opposition to the proposals for improving the capacity at Camden Town station

Base = 586. 11 respondents did not answer this question

Did the level of support and opposition vary for any other characteristics of respondents?

6.3 We considered the characteristics of respondents to see if there were any significant differences in support for the proposals including:

• Usage of the station (question 7) • How often respondents used the station (question 8) • Profile of respondents (question 9) • Health and disability (questions 17 and 18) • Gender (question 12)

6.4 The findings are set out in appendix P. There were no significant differences when making comparisons by these factors. The support for the need for the capacity upgrade did not vary significantly from the overall level of 97 per cent strongly or partially supporting our proposals. A base of 100 is usually required for meaningful comparison of groups (we did not carry out analysis for the other characteristics given the numbers involved).

Comments about our proposals for improving the capacity at Camden Town station (question 2). 6.5 Question 2 asked “Please let us have any comments about our proposals for improving the capacity of Camden Town station”.

6.6 366 respondents responded to this question. 6.7 We devised a code framework which included several overall themes and, within these themes, identified specific comments. For analysis of this part of the question we also considered whether the response was positive, negative, a concerns or a suggestion. 6.8 A full breakdown of all the codes for Question 2 can be found in appendix A1.

6.9 Figure 9 shows the ten most frequently mentioned comments. Figure 9: Most frequently mentioned comments about our proposals for improving the capacity at Camden Town station

Most frequently mentioned comments for Question 2 (comments about our proposals for improving the capacity of Camden Town station)

Theme Comment Number of Category comments Generally supportive/support General support the capacity upgrade 62 Positive and need Additional capacity needed 59 Negative comment about Concern existing station The station is too crowded 47 Long overdue/ get on with it 30 General support Improved access/ less and need congestion 25 Station design Supportive of second proposals entrance/exit on Buck Street 21 Station design proposals Supportive of step-free access 21 Improvement on capacity vital General support for the tourists and visitors to and need the area 19 Station design Good design layout/ use of Positive proposals space 16 Negative comment about Timescale for the upgrade is Concern our proposals too long 15 Preserve the local heritage of Suggestion Heritage old buildings 15

6.10 The most frequently mentioned comments were therefore positive and supportive about our proposals, or highlighted concern at the current overcrowding problems at the station. Negative comments about our proposals focussed on the length of time it would take to complete the upgrade. Preserving the heritage of buildings was the most frequently mentioned suggestion.

6.11 We have responded to all the comments received (including stakeholder responses) in a separate report available on our website http://www.tfl.gov.uk/camden-town- upgrade

6.12 There were 38 respondents who partially supported the scheme. The comments that they made covered a wide range of comments reflected in the overall totals in appendix A1. The most frequently made comments by those partially supporting the scheme were: good idea as long as the existing station does not shut for anything but brief periods/minimise disruption (4 respondents), need for good signage/directional flows (3), concern that more space to change trains will increase walking time especially for people with reduced mobility (3) and opposition to splitting the Northern line into two separate branches (2).

Comments about the quality of the consultation (question 11)

6.13 Question 11 asked “Please tell us what you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.).

6.14 580 respondents answered this question and 98 per cent considered that the quality was either very good, good or acceptable (see figure 10).

Figure 10: Views on the quality of the consultation

Base = 580. 17 respondents did not reply to this question.

6.15 We asked a follow up question “Do you have any further comments about the quality of the consultation materials?” This was an open question and 94 people responded making a total of 100 comments. These comments were coded and appendix A2 provides a full breakdown.

6.16 Figure 11 shows the most frequently mentioned comments from respondents replying to this question. Figure 11: Most frequently made comments about the quality of the consultation

Most frequent comments for Question 11 (quality of the consultation)

Category Number of Comment comments Positive Materials are very good, informative and clear 27 Further Key impacts, impact assessment on traffic information around the works 7 Good proposal 5 Staff helpful and knowledgeable at the Positive exhibition 5 Further Will the station, Northern line be closed during information the upgrade? 4 Negative The consultation was not widely publicised 4 Future planning and design must be in Suggestion consultation with residents 4 Would have liked to see a 3D model at the Suggestion exhibition 3 There were eight comments each made by two respondents (see appendix A2 for details of these). 6.17 The most frequently made comments were therefore positive about the consultation. There was interest in further information about the impacts of the project specifically around traffic, and possible station closures/Northern line closures during the works. Four respondents considered the consultation could be more widely publicised. We have considered these as part of our separate report “Response to issues raised in 2017 consultation”.

7 Responses from stakeholders The following organisations, groups and businesses submitted written responses to the consultation:

7.1 Stakeholder responses Government bodies LB Camden

Support the proposed capacity increase at Camden Town station. Consider the increase in capacity will deliver a long term priority for the council to enhance public transport capacity and accessibility in Camden Town. Stated they will work with TfL to meet expectations for a high quality public realm on Buck Street, with adequate wayfinding provision, to attract passengers to use this entrance.

Request that priority is given during the works to minimising disruption to passengers and that station closures are kept to a minimum. Recommend that TfL liaise closely with Camden Town Unlimited to ensure that the timing of these closures are selected to minimise the impact on local businesses. In general the council is keen for the upgrade to be delivered as soon as possible with minimal disruption.

Noted the over station development will require planning permission and will be obtained through the normal planning process.

London TravelWatch

Consider that these are long overdue improvements that will relieve the huge pressures on the existing station and the poor environment that passengers currently experience. Consider that the new entrance will also improve the interchange with Camden Road station on the North London Line.

MPs

Rt Hon Theresa Villers MP Chipping Barnet

Supports the proposed capacity upgrade at Camden Town station given the increasing number of passengers using this station.

Highlighted the importance of providing step-free access.

Opposed to any proposal to split the Northern line at Camden Town.

Businesses Cavendish School Strongly support the proposals for the station capacity upgrade. Concerned that primary aged pupils may experience difficulties when trying to enter the new station entrance on Buck Street, and suggested a pedestrian crossing from the west side of Camden High Street to Buck Street.

Camden Cutting Group (campaigning group against HS2) Neither support nor oppose the proposals for the station capacity upgrade. Agreed that something needs to be done to improve capacity in the long term but consider the work to Camden Town station should not go ahead while HS2 is being constructed in the same area. Consider that the cumulative impact of spoil removal and construction traffic will be far too great.

Camden Town Unlimited (Business Improvement District) Strongly support the proposals for the station capacity upgrade. Consider that the additional entrance is needed. Request the overall development to consider the loss and lack of affordable workspace in the area. Camden Tour Guide Association Strongly support the proposals for the station capacity upgrade. Consider that as Camden Town grows, it is very important that there is an open, spacious meeting space in front of the tube station. Flat Earth Industries Strongly support the proposals for the station capacity upgrade.

Zoological Society of London Highlighted the importance of signage to ZSL London Zoo within and outside the station. They stated a good proportion of people coming to visit them are families with children in pushchairs and who may therefore choose to use the step-free access exit at Buck Street.

Request that they are informed of all station closures relating to the work as far in advance as possible, and request that closures do not take place around key business periods for example summer holidays. Request that if station closures do have to take place in key holiday periods that other transport networks are fully operational with no road closures around the zoo.

Request that consideration be given as to how the new entrance could be used to create a sense of place” for Camden, highlighting what makes Camden so special including Camden Market, the Roundhouse and ZSL London Zoo.

ZSL is the lead partner of the #OneLess campaign to reduce ocean plastic pollution and better connect Londoners to the ocean. The campaign wants to see London become a city where the predominant water drinking behaviour has shifted from using single-use plastic 27

water bottles to refilling reusable bottles, with this established as the social norm with the infrastructure and systems in place to support it. Their vision is to see this become the reality by 2021. Suggest that water bottle refill stations should be incorporated into the station redevelopment. This will allow people to quickly refill their bottle for free and will help to reduce the use of single-use plastic bottles and encourage hydration. This would help the planet whilst also helping TfL/London Underground with its efforts to promote passenger wellbeing in the warmer months.

Community organisations Camden Methodist Church Partially support our proposals for the station capacity upgrade. Concerned about the length of time the existing station may have to be shut during the construction period.

8 Next steps 8.1 We will continue to engage with local residents, businesses, landowners and stakeholders to involve them in the progress of the proposals, seeking ways to mitigate any impacts where practicable.

8.2 We anticipate a third round of consultation later in 2018 on how we would build the new station entrance and manage the construction impacts.

8.3 Subject to the outcome of the consultations we intend to apply for powers to carry out a capacity upgrade of Camden Town station through a TWAO application. If permission is granted by the Secretary of State for Transport, the main works could start in 2021. The upgrade works would take about four years, completing in 2025/6. Please note these are revised timescales from mentioned in the consultation materials because of our business planning process.

Appendix A1 – Question 1 comments Question 1 asked “Please let us have any comments about our proposals for improving the capacity of Camden Town station”.

The ten comments with the highest frequency counts are highlighted.

Question 1: General comments about the proposals

Positive comments

Highlighted comments are the ten most frequently mentioned comments

Positive comments

General support and need Generally supportive/support the capacity upgrade 62 Additional capacity needed 59 Long overdue/ Get on with it 30 Improved access/ less congestion 25 Improvement on capacity vital for the tourists and visitors to the area 19 Capacity increase needed due to a growing population in Camden area 6 Keep improving the system as it's one of the best in the world 1 Station design proposals Supportive of second entrance/exit on Buck Street 21 Supportive of step-free access 21 Good design layout/ use of space 16 Easier for people with reduced mobility/ parents with buggies 13 Essential/ safer for commuters 12 Pleased that local heritage & features are being preserved 8 Thorough and well thought out plans 8 Support for more escalators 3

Issues of concern

Concerns/ negative comments about our proposals

Timescale for upgrade is too long 15 The new lower concourse still looks too small 2 More space to change trains' will increase commuting/walking time 2 especially for people with reduced mobility

Concern at the effect on local music venues including the Electric 2 Ballroom and the Devonshire Arms Concern at demolishing existing buildings including 25 and 27 Kentish 2 Town Road Lack of escalator access to the southbound platforms 2 Staircase: Connection between northbound level to the lower 1 southbound too small Concerned about air pollution 1 Impact of upgrading concurrently with HS2 construction 1

New Buck Street entrance looks too small 1 Capacity is not the issue, poor crowd/ people management is the issue 1

Concerns/ negative comments about existing station

Station too crowded 47 Sunday closure is disruptive to those living and working in Camden 4 during weekends Interchange between platforms and the entrance at bottom of current 3 escalator dangerous at peak times

Suggestions

Suggestions Design Build for maximum capacity for current and future demand to avoid 4 further need for upgrade/ disruption in future Widen the walkways for easier access to the station from street level 3 (outside rather than inside the station). Wider platform width 3 New cycle dock outside Buck Street exit 3 Widen the space at the bottom of the escalators to avoid jams of people 2 Install platform humps at the north end or inclined diagonal cross 2 passages along the platform for wheelchair users, so wheelchair users do not have to travel as far down the platform Wider concourse to reduce congestion 1 Add dedicated passage ways from the bottom of new escalators 1 (northbound hall) to either northbound platforms 31

Move the control room to the larger proposed building to make room in 1 current space for more ticket machines/ lift shaft The building on Buck St should occupy the whole plot and incorporate 1 commercial units Line the escalator shafts with clear glass as they run through a plague 1 pit - this would be good given the culture of Camden Town

Suggestions New entrance/ exit More exits needed 5 New entrance should be located near the existing entrance to avoid 2 crossing the road Shut existing station entrance/ keep it for emergencies and tube offices 2 Divide the exit area into two so there is no crossover between people 2 exiting & people entering the station Bigger entrance/ ticket hall needed 2 New entrance should be 'entrance' only whilst the existing one can 1 become 'exit' only Provide a separate entrance for visitors to the market and Camden Lock 1 leaving the current entrance for residents only Alternative location for the new entrance could be on Kentish Town 1 Road or Camden High Street close to the existing station Make it possible to enter/ exit at both sides 1

Suggestions Step-free access Increase number of escalators/ lifts 11 A lift in central concourse would reduce walking distance between 4 northbound - southbound platforms Passive provision for possible future addition of escalators to the 2 southbound platforms level Install inclined lifts (less excavation and better for commuters with 1 reduced mobility) Install step-free access from both entrances 1 Provide at least two step-free wide passages between the Barnet and 1 Edgware platforms to avoid congestion Alter lift exit in the northbound hall to come out behind northbound level 1 escalators rather than at the interchange area

Suggestions Access/ tunnels There should be a direct underground passageway to connect Camden 3 Town and Camden Road stations Keep access and flow from the two tunnels separate allowing easier 2 interchange between platforms Change the existing awful, narrow and confusing tunnels 1

Divide up walking areas/ escalators for entrance/ exit for northbound 1 and southbound train branches

Suggestions Preserve heritage / buildings/ features Preserve the local heritage e.g. old buildings like HSBC/ stables market/ 15 artwork etc There should be a commitment to preserve/enhance the unique 4 architecture of the area Preserve local music venues and the Electric Ballroom 4 Preserve the Arch at the four floor brick building at 5 - 7 Buck Street (old 1 Auction Rooms) New station should pay homage to Hawley Infants School - retain part of 1 the architecture or commission artwork The new station should be an exciting architectural development and 1 not bland Don't demolish the two houses on Kentish Town Road (numbers 25 and 1 27) Preserve the old Hawley Infant School historic buildings 1 The building to go above the station should be inline with Camden's 1 vibrant and distinctive area HSBC site should be taken over to make a proper entrance at the main 1 site

Suggestions Station signage Large roundel flagpoles on Camden High Street and Kentish Town 7 Road for visibility of new station entrance Clear unambiguous signage and good directions to preferred station 3 exits Better more comprehensive set of signage and connections to local bus 2 stops for seamless flow to onward journeys

Suggestions Pedestrian crossings Pedestrian tunnel from station to west side of Camden High Street for 3 safer access to the main market. New design should include better/ safer pedestrian crossings and 2 greenery to combat pollution Have a safe pedestrian crossing at the junction of Camden High Street 2 and Buck Street

Suggestions Public facilities provision Publicly accessible toilets/ disabled toilets in new entrance 1 Ceiling hoist provision in disabled toilets 1 33

Suggestions New buildings Any new residential building built should contain a significant number of 2 affordable housing to local key workers The height of the buildings should be no higher than 5 storeys 2 Provide residential space instead of retail 1 There should be provision for a commercial multi-storey building above 1 the station during the planning process - not a housing development as it is a noisy, busy area

Suggestions Northern line/ trains Split the Northern line into two separate branches 7 Do not split the Northern line into two separate branches 3 Increase train frequency to reduce congestion 3 Newer Northern line trains required 2 Some trains should not stop at Camden Town, but should instead go 2 straight to Mornington Crescent which is nearby Improve temperature control on the Northern line 1

Suggestions General suggestions Keep the station open and spiral staircase operational open during the 9 upgrade/ minimise disruption where possible Reopen South Kentish Town station 5 Tackle homelessness and begging problems around Camden station 4 Pedestrianise Buck St area and Stucley Place 3 Tourists should be redirected to Chalk Farm/ Mornington Cresent / 3 Kentish Town stations to ease overcrowding Give consideration to the local traffic too, impact etc 2 Install CCTV cameras and install street lighting around the station to 2 improve safety Open spacious meeting space in front of the tube station 2 Plant trees around Buck Street entrance 2 The proposals shouldn't impact on the market traders and their stalls 2 Camden Market Holdings should be contributing towards upgrade as 1 they will be main beneficiaries of the upgrade Designated areas for the buskers to perform outside the station or 1 around Camden Extend platform to Camden Lock and build a new station entrance there 1 Full or partial pedestrianisation of Camden High Street between 1 Camden Town station & Hawley Road Main Street through Camden market which passes the tube station 1 should be pedestrianised at weekends

Make special provision to keep the waste removal trucks away from 1 cyclists Make the north bound bus stop in Kentish Town Road opposite the back 1 entrance to Sainsburys - would make it safer/ cleaner Existing platforms are small and need upgrading 1 Refer to plaforms by their name and branch (eg northbound High 1 Barnet) not the number (eg platform 3) Remove waste by train not HGVs 1 Reopen Primrose Hill Station 1 To minimise noise pollution do not increase train frequency 1 Needs to be done sensitively with minimal disruption to the local 1 community

Clarifications sought

Clarifications requested Will you be splitting the Northern line into two separate branches? 9 Would having two entrances enable a one-way system at busy times/ 1 when escalators need upgrading in future? Where is the exact location of the new entrance as this could affect 1 where vendors store their goods? Will there be toilets at the station? 1

Appendix A2 – Question 12 comments Do you have any comments about the consultation? (clarity of information, the supporting documents, roadshows etc). Highlighted comments are the most frequently mentioned comments (mentioned by at least three respondents) P os itive comments Materials are very good/ informative and clear 27 Good proposal 5 S taff helpful and knowledgeable at the exhibition 5 Appreciate being consulted 2

Further information request Key impact of the upgrade/ Impact assessment on traffic around 7 the works Will the station/ northern line be closed during the upgrade? 4 Timeframes 2 Properties being displaced 2 Projected station usage/ expected AM/PM flows of people (current 2 vs projected future usage)

Negative comments Content Not widely publicised 4 Decision already made 2 Unable to download the consultation documents 1 Some of the language & grammar used is very poor 1 Consultation delays 1 Very wordy 1 Lack of emphasis on the architectural aspirations of the 1 development work Sceptical re TfL's motives; think it is to give developers greenlight 1 to develop the area Documents not clearly readable on the screen 1 Diagrams Diagram showing how to access to the southbound platforms 1 level isn't at all clear Embedded PDF on the first page is unreadable because it's so 1 small Maps have no road names on them 1 Maps/ plans a little confusing 1 The part of the plans about wheel-chair accessible sections 1 weren't clear enough

The colouring of the consultation boards is unattractive 1 Other Concerned about data protection breach due to personal 1 information requested

Suggestions Diagrams Would have liked to have seen a 3D model at the exhibition 3 Comparison maps/ photos/ plans 2 Video/ audio presentation of the consultation would be useful 2 Clearer information/illustration explaining/showing access to 1 southbound platforms Diagrams: Use one colour for current layout/size & another colour 1 for the new layout/size on a 2D drawing Suggestion: Some of the maps could be better 1 Before and after photos of Buck Street area for comparison 1

Content/ consultation process Future planning/ design must be in consultation with residents 4 Have printed material available 2 More detailed plans of tunnels 1 Ensure there is plenty of information provided as plans progress 1 Questionnaire Question 7 (which statement best describes how you use the 1 station) should allow respondents to choose more than one answer Question 17 & 18 (health problem/disability) should have been in 1 skip logic Questions could have been more detailed (with information on 1 proposed changes) Rework 'Gender Question' to reflect 'Gender' & 'Trans' status 1 separately

General comment The quality of this consultation really depends on the outcome & 1 whether TfL takes feedback seriously

Appendix B – Consultation leaflet

Appendix C – Leaflet distribution area

Appendix D – Pre-consultation engagement letter

Appendix E – Email to stakeholders

Appendix F – Letter to near neighbours (owners of property)

Appendix G – Letter to near neighbours (leaseholders/tenant of property)

Appendix H – List of stakeholders consulted

London Borough of We emailed Camden Town with Primrose Hill ward councillors Camden and all councillors whose ward had an adjoining boundary. We also contacted several other councillors with specific responsibilities relevant to the consultation. Councillor appointments as at the start of the consultation in June 2017.

Camden Town with Cllr Patricia Callaghan Primrose Hill

Camden Town with Cllr Richard Cotton Primrose Hill

Camden Town with Cllr Lazzaro Pietragnoli Primrose Hill

Cllr Jonny Bucknell Belsize

Cllr Claire-Louise Leyland Belsize

Cllr Leila Roy Belsize

Cantelowes/ Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Cllr Phil Jones Transport and Planning

Cllr Danny Beales Cantelowes

Cllr Angela Mason Cantelowes

Cllr Alison Kelly Haverstock

Cllr Abdul Quadir Haverstock

Cllr Abi Wood Haverstock

Cllr Meric Apak Kentish Town

Cllr Jenny Headlam-Wells Kentish Town

Kentish Town/ Leader of Cllr Georgia Gould the Council

St Pancras and Somers Cllr Samata Khatoon Town

St Pancras and Somers Cllr Roger Robinson Town

Cllr Paul Tomlinson St Pancras and Somers

Town

Cllr Roger Freeman Swiss Cottage

Cllr Andrew Marshall Swiss Cottage

Cllr Don Williams Swiss Cottage

Cllr Heather Johnson Chair of the Development Control Committee

Cllr Awale Olad Chair of the Culture and Environment Scrutiny Committee

Cllr Abdul Hai Cabinet Member for Customers, Communities and Culture

Cllr Jonathan Simpson Cabinet Member for Protecting Culture and Communities

Officers

Greater London Caroline Pidgeon AM Chair of the Transport Authority (June 17) Committee Deputy Chair of the Keith Prince Transport Committee

Member of the Transport Kemi Badenoch Committee

Member of the Transport Tom Copley Committee

Member of the Transport Florence Eshalomi Committee

Member of the Transport David Kurten Committee

Member of the Transport Joanne McCartney Committee

Member of the Transport Steve O’Connell Committee

Member of the Transport Navin Shah Committee

Caroline Russell Member of the Transport

Committee

Member for Barnet and Andrew Dismore Camden

Val ShawCross Deputy Mayor Transport

Gareth Bacon Bexley and Bromley

Andrew Boff London wide

Nicky Gavron London wide

Dr Onkar Sahota Ealing and Hillingdon

Fiona Twycross London wide

Officers

MPs Keir Starmer MP Holborn and St Pancras (covers Camden Town, Kentish Town and Tufnell Park stations)

Paul Maynard MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport

Chris Grayling MP Secretary of State for Transport

Rosena Allin-Khan MP Tooting (covers Northern line stations)

Jeremy Corbyn MP Islington North (covers Northern line stations)

Neil Coyle MP Bermondsey and Old Southwark (covers Northern line stations)

Marsha de Cordova MP Battersea (covers Northern line stations)

Mark Field MP Cities of London and Westminster (covers Northern line stations)

Mike Freer MP Finchley and Golders Green (covers Northern line station)

Stephen Hammond MP Wimbledon (covers

Northern line station)

Meg Hillier MP Hackney South and Shoreditch (covers Northern line station)

Kate Hoey MP Vauxhall (covers Northern line station)

Siobhain McDonagh MP Mitcham and Morden (covers Northern line station)

Matthew Offord MP Hendon (covers Northern line station)

Tulip Siddiq MP Hampstead and Kilburn (covers Northern line station)

Emily Thornberry MP Islington South and Finsbury (covers Northern line stations)

Chukka Umunna MP Streatham (covers Northern line stations)

Catherine West MP Hornsey and Wood Green (covers Northern line station)

Theresa Villiers MP Chipping Barnet (covers Northern line stations)

Department for Officers Transport

Resident and community Agar Grove Tenants organisations Management Co-op ABC Community Group Limited

Albert Street North Residents Ampthill Square Tenants Association and Residents Association

Auden Place Tenants Bangali Parent and Association Tenants Association

Barnes House Tenants Baptist Gardens Association and Residents Association

Bartholomew Area Residents Bayham Place Estate Association Residents Association

Belsize Avenue (41-43) Beaumont Walk Tenants and Tenants and Residents Residents Association Association

Belsize Grove (8) Belsize Housing Leaseholders Association Association

Belsize Village Residents Belsize Residents Association and Traders Association

Blashford Tenants and Bray Tenants and Residents Association Leaseholders Association

Broadfield Broadhurst Close and Fairhurst Bridge House Leaseholders Tenants and Residents Association Association

Brook and Cranleigh House Burnham Residents Tenants and Residents Association Association

Camden Federation of BUTA Limited Private Tenants

Camden Square Area Camden Park Residents Tenants and Residents Association Limited Association

Camden Square Camden Town Speaks Neighbourhood Association Residents Association

Canfield Place Residents Camden Village Association Association

Castle Road Estate Tenants and Residents Carol Street Housing Co-op Association

Castle Road Residents Castlehaven Community Association Assocation

Chalk Farm Parking Chalk Farm Housing Group Action Group

Chamberlain Street Charlton Kings Tenants Association Association

Clarence Way Estate Chester Terrace Residents Tenants and Residents Association Association

Collard Place and Part College Lane and Little

Harmood Street Residents Green Street Residents Association Association

College Place Leaseholders Coopers Lane Tenants Association and Residents Association

Cresta House Residents Crash Association

Cumberland Market Estate Curnock Street Tenants Residents Association and Residents Association

Delancey Street Residents Delancey Studios Tenants Association and Residents Association

Denton Tenants and Dorney Residents Residents Association Association

Drummond Street Tenants Durdans House Tenants and Residents Association and Residents Association

Elaine Court (Management) Elliott Square Residents Limited Association

Elm Village Residents and Elsworthy Court Members Tenants Association Company Limited

Elsworthy Residents Evangelist Road Association Residents Association

Fairfax Place Residents Fairfax Road (12-36) Association Residents Association

Gaisford Street Leaseholders Georgiana Leaseholders Association Association

Godwin and Crowndale Goldington Street Estate Tenants Management Co- Tenants and Residents operative Association

Greenwood Tenants Hadley Street Residents Association Association

Harmood Clarence Hartland Haverstock Hill Circle Residents Association Residents Association

Hilgrove Estate Residents Hillfield Court Limited Association

Ingestre Road Tenants Inkerman Area Residents

Association Association

Kelly Street Residents Jeffreys Street Association Association

Kennistoun, Willingham, Kenbrook Tenants and Rosemary and Margaret Residents Association Tenants Association

Leighton Road Little Green Street Neighbourhood Association Website

Maiden Lane Estate Maiden Lane Management Board Leaseholders Association

Maiden Lane Tenants and Maitland Park Tenants Residents Association and Residents Association

Mayford Tenants and Mornington Area Action Residents Association Group

OFE Broadhurst Gardens Mornington District Tenants and Residents Association Association

Ossulston Tenants and Park Village and Environs Residents Association Residents Association

Peckwater Estate Tenants Phoenix Court Community Association Tenants Association

Primrose Hill Court Primrose Gardens Community Tenants and Residents Association Association

Prince Albert Road (17-22) Residents Association Queensmead NW8

Reeds and Rochester Place Regal Lane Limited Neighbourhood Association

Regents Park Tenants Rhyl Tenants and Association Residents Association

Sidney Boyd Court Tenants Somers Town Tenants and Residents Association Association

St Georges Terrace Residents St Johns Court Residents Association Committee

Stanbury Court Management Taplow Tenants and Limited Residents Association

Tiptree, Barling & Three Fields Tenants and Havering Tenants Residents Association Residents Association

Una House Tenants and Torriano Cottages Association Residents Association

Waterside Place Residents Winchester Road Association Residents Association

Other Camden groups Camden & Westminster Camden Carers Refugee Training Partnership

Camden Libraries (Central, Camden Direct Camden Town, Kentish Town, Information Centre Queens Crescent and Pancras Square)

Camden Drug Intervention Camden Elderly Irish Project Support Group

Camden LGBT Forum Camden LINk

Camden Mobility Forum Camden People First

Camden Women’s Institute (Ladies of the Camden Volunteer Bureau Lock)

Neighbourcare St John's Hawley Wharf Action Group Wood & Maida Vale

The Camden Society

Camden advice agencies Camden Chinese Kentish Town CAB Community Centre

Camden Cypriot Women's Camden Somali Cultural Centre Centre

Ethiopian Community in Hopscotch Asian Womens Britain Centre

St Pancras Refugee Centre Somali Community Centre

Doorstep Homeless DISC (Disability in Camden) Families Project

Camden under 25s Advice Centre

Camden Community Bengali Workers' Association Castlehaven Community

Centres Association Ingestre Road Community Kentish Town Community Centre Centre

Maiden Lane Community London Irish Centre Centre

The Pirate Castle Primrose Hill Community Association

Queen’s Crescent Community Saint Pancras Community Association Association

Somers Town Community The Thanet Youth & Association Community Centre

West Euston Partnership

Camden Children’s Agar Children’s Centre Hampden Nursery Centres Regents Park Children’s Harmood Children’s Centre Centre

Parents and toddlers PACE (Play Adventure groups and Community Mums, Dads and Tots Enrichment)

Parent & Toddler Gymnastics Ready Steady Go

Salvation Army Chalk Farm West Euston Time Bank

Faith groups The Danish Church in Chalk Farm Baptist Church London

The Greek Orthodox Greek Orthodox Cathedral Cathedral of St. Andrew Church of All Saints

Roman Catholic Church of UK Islamic Mission (UKIM) Our Lady of Hal

Shah Jalal Masjid (Euston St Michael’s Church Mosque)

Trinity United Reformed Church (and all groups St Pancras Church based at the church)

Health & Social Services Camden Clinical Camden Community Drug groups Commissioning Group Service Camden Council - Public Camden and Islington Health NHS Foundation Trust

Central and North West London NHS Foundation Camden Healthwatch Trust

James Wigg Group Health & Safety Executive Medical Practice

New Horizon Youth MIND in Camden Centre

Prince of Wales Medical Public Health England Centre

Thames Reach Spectrum Royal Free Hospital Centre

Thames Reach Spectrum University College Centre Hospital

Women and Health Camden

Community groups Camden Cypriot Women’s Afghan Community Centre Organisation

Camden Safer Neighbourhood English Folk Dance and Board Song Society

Hopscotch Asian Women's Primrose Hill Good Centre Neighbour Scheme

Somali Elderly and Disabled Voluntary Action Camden Centre (VAC)

Volunteer Centre Camden

Schools Frank Barnes School for Cavendish School Deaf Children

Kentish Town C of E Hawley Primary School Primary School

Netley Primary School

Environment and Camden Square Heritage groups Conservation Area Camden Civic Society Advisory Committee

Camden Town Conservation Design Council Area Advisory Committee

English Heritage Environment Agency

Historic England London Borough of

Camden Heritage Office

Primrose Hill Conservation Area Natural England Advisory Committee

Regents Canal Conservation Area Advisory Committee

Business organisations Arlington House Bee Midtown BID Bucks Head Camden Lock

Camden Town Unlimited BID Confederation of British Industry (CBI)

Electric Ballroom KOKO

London Zoo Market Tech

Nemesis Tattoo Open University

Pirate Castle ROKIT

Roundhouse Sainsbury’s We wrote to all owners of nearby properties and visited businesses at the start of the consultation

Travel organisations Association of British AA Motoring Trust Drivers

Association of Car Fleet British Motorcyclists Operators Federation

Camden Railway Heritage Camden Cycling Campaign Trust

Confederation of Campaign for Better Transport Passenger Transport

CTC, the national cycling Freight Transport charity Association

Licenced Taxi Drivers Green Flag Group Association

Living Streets London Cab Drivers Club

London Cycling Campaign London TravelWatch (Camden)

Motorcycle Action Group Motorcycle Industry

Association

Office of Rail and Road Road Haulage Association

West Hampstead Amenity Sustrans and Transport

Equality groups Action on Hearing Loss Age UK (Camden and (Londonwide) (formerly RNID) London) Asian Peoples Disabilities Alzheimer's Society Alliance

Disability Alliance Disability Rights UK

Disabled Persons Transport Faiths Forum 4 London Advisory Committee

Greater London Forum for the Guide Dogs for the Blind Elderly Association

Joint Committee on Human Rights and Equalities Mobility of Blind and Network Partially Sighted People (JCMBPS)

Joint Mobility Unit London Older People's Strategy Group

MIND Mumsnet

National Children's National Autistic Society Bureau

Race Equality Foundation Refugee Action

Runnymede Trust RNIB

Scope Sense

Sixty Plus St Mungo's

Stroke Association Three Faiths Forum

The British Dyslexia Association

Other organisations Canal & River Trust BT London

EDF Energy Foyer Federation

GLA Strategy Access Panel GMB Union

Independent Disability Institute of Civil Engineers Advisory Group (TfL)

London Ambulance Service London Councils

Metropolitan Police London Fire and Emergency Service/ Camden Safer Planning Authority Transport Team

National Grid RMT Union

Royal Mail Royal Parks

SGN Thames Water

Unions Together Unite Union

UK Power Networks

Appendix I – Email to Oyster card users

Appendix J – Camden Town Library drop-in event poster

Appendix K – Press release

Appendix L – Public exhibition display boards

Appendix M – Questionnaire

Appendix O – Demographic monitoring Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Gender Total % Male 373 62% Female 181 30% Trans female 0 0 Trans male 1 0 Gender neutral 2 0 Prefer not to say 15 3% Not Answered 25 4% Total 597 100%

Ethnicity Total % Asian or Asian British – Bangladeshi 3 1% Asian or Asian British – Chinese 5 1% Asian or Asian British – Indian 19 3% Asian or Asian British – Other 4 1% Asian or Asian British – Pakistani 0 0 Black or Black British – African 8 1% Black or Black British – Caribbean 6 1% Black or Black British – Other 2 0 Mixed – Other 10 2% Mixed – White and Asian 7 1% Mixed – White and Black African 3 1% Mixed – White and Caribbean 3 1% Other Ethnic Group 3 1% Other Ethnic Group – Arab 3 1% Other Ethnic Group – Kurdish 0 0 Other Ethnic Group – Latin American 4 1% Other Ethnic Group – Turkish 2 0 White – British 336 56% White – Irish 17 3% White – Other 101 17% Prefer not to say 35 6% Not Answered 26 4% Total 597 100%

Age Total % Under 15 3 1% 16-20 15 3% 21-25 42 7% 26-30 90 15% 31-35 85 14% 36-40 52 9% 41-45 48 8% 46-50 63 11% 51-55 42 7% 56-60 51 9% 61-65 19 3% 66-70 23 4% 71+ 19 3% Prefer not to say 18 3% Not Answered 27 5% Total 597 100%

Sexuality Total % Bisexual man 11 2% Bisexual woman 11 2% Gay man 63 11% Heterosexual man 237 40% Heterosexual woman 139 23% Lesbian 5 2% Other 8 1% Prefer not to say 87 15% Not Answered 36 6% Total 597 100%

Faith Total % Buddhist 3 1% Christian 145 24% Hindu 8 1% Muslim 9 2% Sikh 0 0% Jewish 27 5% Other 21 4% No religion 278 47% Prefer not to say 67 11% Not Answered 39 7% Total 597 100% Total %

Disability/health problem lasted or expected to last at least 12 months Yes, limited a lot 17 3% Yes, limited a little 49 8% No 472 79% Prefer not to say 24 4% Not Answered 35 6% Total 597 100%

Appendix P - Support and opposition by profile of respondents

Level of support or opposition for our proposals and how respondents use Camden Town station (q1, q7): “Which of the following statements best describes how you use Camden Town station?”

To enter or To change I do not use exit the trains between the station station different branches of the Northern line % Number % Number % Number Strongly 93% 344 89% 163 16 support Partially 5% 18 8% 14 4 support Neither support 1% 4 2% 3 nor oppose Partially 1% 2 2% 3 oppose Strongly 1% 3 1% 1 oppose No 1 0 opinion Toal 100% 372 100% 184 100% 20

Base = 576. 21 respondents did not answer both questions.

Percentages have not been included in this table for respondents not using the station given the small number indicating this as their profile.

The level of support or opposition to our proposals and frequency of use of Camden Town station (q1, q8) “How often do you use Camden Town station? This could be to enter or exit the station or to change trains between different branches of the Northern line”.

5+ days a week 3 to 4 days a 1 to 2 days a 1 to 3 times a Less than once I do not use week week month a month the station

Strongly % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number support 93% 92 88% 68 86% 96 92% 151 92% 104 11 Partially 5% 5 8% 6 9% 10 5% 9 6% 7 1 support Neither support 0 3% 2 1% 1 2% 3 1% 1 0 nor oppose Partially 1% 1 1% 1 3% 3 1% 1 0 0 oppose Fully 1% 1 0 2% 2 0 1% 1 0 oppose No 0 0 0 1% 1 0 0 opinion 100% 99 100% 77 100% 112 100% 165 100% 113 100% 12

Base = 578. 19 respondents did not answer both questions.

Percentages have not been included in this table for respondents not using the station given the small numbers indicating this as their profile.

The level of support or opposition to our proposals based on profile of respondents (q1, q9) “Are you?”

Business Local resident Employed locally Visitor to the area Commuter Other owner Strongly support 91% 228 9 88% 69 91% 187 88% 177 24 Partially support 6% 14 1 6% 5 5% 11 8% 16 2 Neither support nor oppose 1% 3 1 3% 2 1% 3 2% 4 0 Partially oppose 1% 2 0 3% 2 1% 3 1% 3 1 Fully oppose 1% 3 0 0 1 1% 2 0 No opinion 1 0 0 0 0 0

251 11 78 205 202 27

Base = note respondents could choose more than one option in question 10.

Percentages have not been included in this table for business owners and “other” given the small numbers indicating these as their profiles.

The level of support or opposition to our proposals based on health/ disability of respondents (q1, q17) “Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or disability which as lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months? (Please include problems related to old age)”

Yes, limited a Yes, limited a Prefer not to No lot little say

Strongly % Number % Number % Number % Number support 12 90% 44 91% 427 20 Partially 4 6% 3 6% 28 3 support Neither support 0 2% 1 1% 5 1 nor oppose Partially 0 2% 1 1% 5 0 oppose Strongly 0 0 1% 3 0 oppose No 0 0 1 0 opinion 100% 16 100% 49 100% 469 100% 24

Base = 558. 39 respondents did not answer both questions.

Percentages have not been included in this table for respondents stating “yes, limited a lot” or “prefer not to say” given the small numbers indicating these as their profiles.

The level of support or opposition to our proposals based on gender (q1, q12)

Prefer not to Q1 Male Female say

Strongly % Number % Number % Number support 92% 341 87% 157 13 Partially 6% 22 7% 13 2 support Neither support 1% 3 2% 4 nor oppose Partially 1% 2 2% 3 oppose Strongly 1% 2 1% 2 oppose No 0 1% 1 opinion 370 180 15

Base = 565. 32 respondents did not answer both questions.

Other gender categories with small number of respondents not shown for clarity of table information. Percentages for respondents stating they would prefer not to say given the small numbers indicating this.