Bus Service Proposal: Route P5 Extension to Battersea Power Station

Bus service proposal: route P5 extension to Battersea Power Station

Consultation Report March 2018, updated October 2018

Contents

1. Executive summary ...... 3 2. About the proposals ...... 5 3. About the consultation ...... 7 4. About the respondents ...... 11 5. Summary of consultation responses ...... 15 6. Next steps ...... 29 Appendix A: Detailed analysis of comments ...... 30 Appendix B: Consultation materials ...... 37 Appendix C: List of stakeholders consulted ...... 51 Appendix D: Petitions ...... 53

1. Executive summary

Between 26 June and 20 August 2017, we consulted on proposals to extend bus route P5 to Battersea Power Station. We received 196 responses to the consultation (including 12 responses from stakeholders). Of these:  49 per cent strongly or partially opposed the proposal to extend route P5 to Battersea Power Station, 48 per cent strongly or partially supported the change, while three per cent neither supported nor opposed the proposal  46 per cent strongly or partially opposed the proposal to shorten existing on- street parking, 40 per cent strongly or partially supported the change, while 10 per cent neither supported nor opposed the proposal. Four per cent did not answer  53 per cent strongly or partially opposed the proposal to convert on-street parking to footway parking, 31 per cent strongly or partially supported the change, while 12 per cent neither supported nor opposed the proposal. Four per cent did not answer  48 per cent strongly or partially supported the proposal to install traffic calming at the junction of Thessaly Road with Ascalon Street, 36 per cent strongly or partially opposed the change, while 10 per cent neither supported nor opposed the proposal. Five per cent did not answer

1.1 Summary of issues raised during consultation Below is a summary of some of the more prominent issues raised during consultation. Our detailed analysis of responses is included in Appendix A.  The existing network is sufficient for local residents and the P5 extension is unnecessary due to the Northern Line extension  Concern regarding safety of children in the area  Concern that enforcement would not be possible  Concern regarding an increase in noise and air pollution if the proposal was to go ahead  Concern regarding the removal of parking

1.2 Petitions and campaigns Two petitions were submitted to the consultation, both opposed the proposed extension to route P5. For full details, including how they were included in our analysis, go to Section 5.6.

1.3 Next steps After considering all of the responses to the consultation, we have decided to put all of our proposals on hold. We will have further discussions with London Borough of Wandsworth to see if the safety issues raised can be mitigated. More detail is provided in Section 6.

2. About the proposals

2.1 Introduction

The London bus network is kept under regular review. As part of this, we develop proposals for changes to services. Consultation was undertaken on a proposal to extend route P5 to Battersea Power Station.

2.2 Purpose

As part of the Mayor’s Opportunity Area Planning Framework, Nine Elms including Battersea Power Station has been identified as an area for major redevelopment. This development has commenced and will be continuing in the coming years, boasting approximately 40 major development with new residential and office units, a new shopping district and new London Underground stations. It is planned to construct 20,000 new homes and create 25,000 new jobs between now and 2027.

An extension to bus route P5 was identified within the bus strategy for Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea (VNEB) Opportunity Area to address increasing demand in the area. This would create direct connections from areas of Lambeth to new jobs and retail services.

2.3 Detailed description

We proposed extending the route from Thessaly Road via Battersea Park Road and Kirtling Street to Battersea Power Station. Towards Elephant & Castle the route would run from Battersea Power Station via Kirtling Street, Battersea Park Road, Thessaly Road, Ascalon Street, Stewart’s Road and Wandsworth Road to current line of route.

Thessaly Road would be open to buses and cyclists only.

Works required to facilitate the extension of route P5 In order to facilitate the extension via Thessaly Road, we would need to make alterations to the highway to enable buses to use the road.

The following changes would be required:

 The existing on-street parking bay opposite the current Santander cycle docking station would be shortened by 20 metres to provide a passing place

 The existing on-street parking bay outside 1- 65 Thessaly House would need to be converted to part footway parking

 The existing on-street parking bay outside 182 - 192 Thessaly Road would need to be shortened by 5 metres to provide a passing place

 The existing on-street parking bay opposite 158 - 176 Thessaly Road would need to be converted to footway parking to create space

 The existing on-street parking outside 160 - 176 Thessaly Road would need to be shorted by 20 metres to provide a passing place

 The existing on-street parking bay opposite 160 Thessaly Road would need to be removed to provide a passing place

 The surface would be slightly raised at the junction of Thessaly Road with Ascalon Street to provide a traffic calming measure

 Some footway realignment work would be required on the junction where Thessaly Road meets Ascalon Street to provide sufficient space for passing buses

 The existing tree on the south east corner of Battersea Park Road would need to be removed to allow visibility for buses and cyclists turning left from Battersea Park Road

 The planting at the northern end of Thessaly Road would need removal to open up the road for access

 Thessaly Road would need to be opened up for buses and cyclists only

3. About the consultation

3.1 Purpose The objectives of the consultation were:

 To give stakeholders and the public easily-understandable information about the proposals and allow them to respond  To understand the level of support or opposition for the change/s for the proposals  To understand any issues that might affect the proposal of which we were not previously aware  To understand concerns and objections  To allow respondents to make suggestions

3.2 Potential outcomes The potential outcomes of the consultation are:

 Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide to proceed with the scheme as set out in the consultation  Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we modify the proposals in response to issues raised and proceed with a revised scheme  Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide not to proceed with the scheme

Our conclusion and next steps are set out in Section 6.

3.3 Who we consulted We sought the views of customers currently using route P5, as well as local businesses in the Battersea area. We also consulted stakeholders including the London Boroughs of Lambeth and Wandsworth, London TravelWatch, local politicians, and local resident and community groups. A full list of the stakeholders consulted can be found in Appendix C.

3.4 Dates and duration

This was an eight week consultation which ran between 26 June and 20 August 2017.

A consultation on proposals for the road layout on Nine Elms Lane and Battersea Park Road was run concurrently, the results of which are reported separately. For more information please visit tfl.gov.uk/nine-elms-lane

3.5 What we asked Our survey comprised several closed questions asking people to select an answer that matched their level of support for or against the extension to the P5 bus route and different aspects of it.

We gave respondents the chance to provide comments on the proposals and also the quality of the consultation materials.

For the complete list of questions we asked about the extension to P5 bus route proposals please visit Appendix B.

3.6 Methods of responding People were able to respond to the consultation through the following channels:

 By answering the questions in the survey on our consultation website at tfl.gov.uk/p5-extension

 By sending a letter to FREEPOST TfL CONSULTATIONS

 By emailing: [email protected]. The Consultation Team also answered questions from members of the public and stakeholders via email

 By phoning our Customer Services Team, which had been briefed on the proposals and were available to answer questions and take responses from members of the public. When our telephone operatives were unable to answer questions immediately, these were forwarded to the Consultation Team, and were answered subsequently by email or telephone

 By leaving comments and/or filling in questionnaires at one of the public drop- in sessions (or posting a questionnaire to the address above)

 Through our Customer Services Team, it was possible to request foreign language translations, large print, Braille or audio versions of our consultation materials

3.7 Consultation materials and publicity We used a range of channels to raise awareness of the consultation and ensure that members of the public and stakeholders were aware of the consultation and its purposes. All materials encouraged interested parties to visit our website or contact us to find out more about the scheme and how to respond. We explain the channels used below.

3.7.1 Website Our website provided detailed information about our consultation, including text explanations of our proposals and maps helping to explain the proposals.

The website provided people with the opportunity to respond to the consultation by answering our questionnaire.

3.7.2 Letters We sent a letter to over 5,000 addresses within approximately 400 metres of the area of the extension.

The letter directed people to the consultation website and invited them to respond. They were also informed about our consultation events. A copy of the letter is included in Appendix B.

3.7.3 Emails to public We sent an email about the consultation to over 3,000 people who are registered users of the P5. A copy of the email sent is included in Appendix B.

3.7.4 Emails to stakeholders An email about the consultation was sent to stakeholders including the London Boroughs of Lambeth and Wandsworth, London TravelWatch, Members of Parliament, Assembly Members, ward councillors, traffic police, and local interest groups. A list of the stakeholders we consulted is shown in Appendix C and a summary of their responses is given in Section 5.5.

3.7.5 On-site advertising Our consultation material was on display for the duration of the consultation at the R.O.S.E Clubroom, a local community centre on Ascalon Street.

3.7.6 Public meetings, events and exhibitions Public drop-in events

During the formal consultation period we held four public drop in events at which people could discuss the proposals with members of the project team and view printed materials:

 Thursday 6 July 2017, Life Tabernacle Church, 32 Battersea Park Road, London SW114HY, 15:30 – 19:00

 Sunday 9 July 2017, New Covent Garden Market, Row C Pitch 73, Nine Elms Lane, London SW8 5BH, 08:00 – 14:00

 Thursday 20 July, Life Tabernacle Church, 32 Battersea Park Road, London SW114HY, 15:30 – 19:00

 Wednesday 26 July, Embassy Gardens, New Union Square (adjacent to Waitrose Nine Elms store), 5 Nine Elms Lane, London, SW8 5DA

Public meetings

28 June 2017: We presented the P5 proposals at the Community Engagement Advisory Group organised by the London Borough of Wandsworth.

19 July 2017: We attended a meeting organised by the Savona Residents Association, to take note of questions and concerns from local residents.

3.8 Analysis of consultation responses We commissioned SYSTRA Ltd to analyse the consultation responses. All closed questions were reviewed and the results tabulated and reported.

Responses to the open question were read and analysed in detail. Each individual comment was attributed with one or more codes according to the issues raised. This information was also analysed.

All results are reported in Section 4, Section 5 and Appendix A of this report.

4. About the respondents

4.1 Number of respondents

There were 196 respondents to the consultation.

Stakeholder responses are those submitted by individuals who identify themselves as representing political entities, organisations, businesses or campaign groups. Their responses are summarised in Section 5.5.

Respondents Total % Public responses 184 94 Stakeholder responses 12 6 Total 196 100

4.2 How respondents heard about the consultation

We asked respondents to tell us how they heard about the consultation. A total of 163 (85%) of 196 respondents provided an answer.

Heard of the consultation Total % Received an email from TfL 54 33 Social media 14 9 Saw it on the TfL website 23 14 Other (please specify) 23 14 Read about it in the press 2 1 Received a letter from TfL 47 29 Total 163 100

4.3 Methods of responding

We accepted responses via our online survey; directly by email to [email protected]; and via letter or response form sent to our FREEPOST address. We also accepted feedback passed on to us through email by our Customer Services Team, who answered phone calls from members of the public.

Method of responding Total % Online 161 83% Email 28 14% Paper form 3 2% Phone call 2 <1% Letter 1 <1% Face to face meeting 1 <1% Total 196 100

4.4 Respondent postcodes

Of the 196 respondents to the consultation, 142 (74% of all respondents) submitted their postcode. We received responses from 87 unique postcodes. Below we have listed all postcodes provided by 2 or more respondents, which accounted for 91% of overall responses to the question. All other postcodes were cited 1 or less times.

Postcode Total % SW8 96 68 SW1 13 9 SE1 7 5 SE5 6 4 SW9 5 4 SW2 2 1

4.4.1 Map showing distribution of all respondent postcodes

4.4.2 Map showing respondent postcodes near the proposed scheme

4.5 Relationship between respondent and scheme area

We asked respondents to describe their relationship to the scheme area using the categories below, with respondents encouraged to tick one or more categories. 197 responses were provided by 162 respondents (some respondents selected more than one option). The table below shows a breakdown of these, with percentages given as a proportion of the total responses provided.

Category of respondent Total % A local resident 130 66 A commuter to the area 19 10 Employed locally 16 8 A visitor to the area 15 8 Not local but interested in the scheme 9 5 Business owner 4 2 Other 4 2 Total 197 100

5. Summary of consultation responses

5.1 About this chapter

To gain feedback on the scheme, we asked respondents answering the online survey six closed questions, allowing them to show their level of support for the proposals and indicate whether they used the P5. We also asked two open questions which allowed respondents to comment on the proposals and the quality of the consultation.

Note that the closed questions are calculated from those that responded to the question only. Where responses came through other channels responses to these questions have not been inferred. However, the most frequently raised issues are based on responses received through all channels.

Note that stakeholder responses are included in the results in this chapter.

Percentages are calculated from the number of respondents that answered each question.

5.2 P5 users

All percentages are based on the number of respondents that answered the question. Of the 196 responses to the consultation, 171 respondents stated whether they used the P5 bus or not. The table below show that the majority of respondents were users of the P5.

Currently use the P5 Total % Yes 111 65% No 60 35% Total 171 100

5.3 Summary of levels of support for the proposals

5.3.1 Level of support for the extension of P5 to Battersea Power Station

172 respondents expressed their level of support or opposition for proposals to extend the P5 route to Battersea Power Station. Answer options were: strongly support, partially support, neither support or oppose, partially oppose, strongly oppose and no opinion

The table and chart below display the level of support or opposition for the extension of the P5 bus route to Battersea Power Station.

Level of support for extending P5 to Total % Battersea Power Station Strongly support 64 37 Partially support 19 11 Neither support or oppose 5 3 Partially oppose 1 1 Strongly oppose 83 48 No opinion 0 0 Total 172 100

Level of support for extending route P5 to Battersea Power Station 90

80 70 60 50 40 30

20 NumberofResponses 10 0 Strongly support Partially support Neither oppose nor Partially oppose Strongly oppose support

5.3.2 Level of support for shortening existing on-street parking to provide passing space

168 respondents expressed their level of support or opposition for shortening existing on-street parking to provide passing space. Answer options were: strongly support, partially support, neither support or oppose, partially oppose, strongly oppose and no opinion.

The table and chart below display the levels of support and opposition for the proposals to shorten existing on-street parking to provide passing space.

Level of support for shortening existing Total % on-street parking Strongly support 52 31 Partially support 15 9 Neither support or oppose 16 10 Partially oppose 4 2 Strongly oppose 74 44 No opinion 7 4 Total 168 100

Level of support for shortening existing on-street parking 80

NumberofResponses 20

0 Strongly support Partially support Neither support Partially oppose Strongly oppose No opinion nor oppose

5.3.3 Level of support for converting existing on-street parking to footway parking

167 respondents expressed their level of support or opposition for proposals regarding the conversion of on-street parking to footway parking. Answer options were: strongly support, partially support, neither support or oppose, partially oppose, strongly oppose and no opinion

The table and chart below display the levels of support and opposition for proposals to convert existing on-street parking to footway parking.

Level of support for converting existing Total % on-street parking to footway parking Strongly support 37 22 Partially support 15 9 Neither support or oppose 20 12 Partially oppose 5 3 Strongly oppose 83 50 No opinion 7 4 Total 167 100

Level of support for conversion of on-street parking to footway parking 90

80 70 60 50 40

30 NumberofResponses 20 10 0 Strongly support Partially support Neither support Partially oppose Strongly oppose No opinion nor oppose

5.3.4 Level of support for installation of traffic calming at Thessaly Road / Ascalon Street junction

167 respondents expressed their level of support and opposition for proposals to install traffic calming at the junction of Thessaly Road with Ascalon Road. Answer options were: strongly support, partially support, neither support or oppose, partially oppose, strongly oppose and no opinion.

The table and chart below display the levels of support and opposition for the proposed installation of traffic calming at the junction of Thessaly Road with Ascalon Road.

Level of support for installation of traffic Total % calming at Thessaly Rd / Ascalon St junction Strongly support 57 34 Partially support 24 14 Neither support or oppose 17 10 Partially oppose 7 4 Strongly oppose 53 32 No opinion 9 5 Total 167 100

Level of support for installation of traffic calming 60

20 Number ofNumberResponses

0 Strongly support Partially support Neither support Partially oppose Strongly oppose No opinion nor oppose

5.4 Comments on overall proposals

We asked respondents to provide any other comments on our proposals. This section details comments received in the following categories: bus route and frequency, parking; enforcement, environment, safety, Santander cycles, other comments, and quality of consultation material.

140 respondents answered the open question on the overall proposals for the extension of the P5 route, generating 393 comments. The table below shows the most frequently discussed topics in responses to this question. The rest of the chapter details issues raised under each topic in more detail. Detailed analysis of all questions can be found in Appendix A.

Topic Area Total Bus route and frequency 173 Safety 71 Enforcement 56

5.4.1 Bus routes and frequency

173 comments were made regarding the route and frequency of the P5 service. The table below shows the most frequently raised issues in responses to this question. Detailed analysis of all questions can be found in Appendix A.

Issues Total Opposition to extension to P5 route 126 Support of extension to P5 route 28 Increase frequency of P5 16

5.4.2 Safety

71 comments were made regarding safety concerns in relation to the overall proposals for the P5 extension. The table below shows the most frequently raised issues in responses to this question. Detailed analysis of all questions can be found in Appendix A.

Issues Total Historic incidents involving children 25 Proximity of schools to proposed route 9

5.4.3 Enforcement

56 comments were made on the enforcement of bus and cyclist only access into Thessaly Road. The table below shows the most frequently raised issues in responses to this question. Detailed analysis of all questions can be found in Appendix A.

Issues Total Do not believe enforcement is possible 33 Do not believe enforcement is possible for motorbikes 11

5.4.4 Environment

39 comments were made regarding the environment. The table below shows the most frequently raised issues in responses to this question. Detailed analysis of all questions can be found in Appendix A.

Issues Total Concern over removal of trees or planters 12 Concern over increased noise pollution due to increased 9 congestion Concern over increased noise pollution, no cause referenced 6 Concern over increased air pollution due to increased congestion 5

5.4.5 Parking

41 comments were made on the topic of parking within the scope of the P5 extension. The table below shows the most frequently raised issues in responses to this question. Detailed analysis of all questions can be found in Appendix A.

Issues Total Do not remove parking due to existing shortage 17 Do not remove parking, with no specific reason given 8 Do not remove parking, required for local residents 4 Footway parking is unsafe 4

5.4.6 Santander Cycles

6 comments were made regarding the relocation of the Santander Cycle docking station. The table below shows the most frequently raised issues in responses to this question. Detailed analysis of all questions can be found in Appendix A.

Issue Total Do not relocate docking station 6

5.5 Summary of stakeholder responses

This section provides summaries of the feedback we received from stakeholders. The full stakeholder responses are always used for analysis purposes. As well as being summarised here, the stakeholder responses are included in the analysis of the overall responses covered in this chapter and in Appendix A.

Each summary begins with a statement explaining the stakeholder’s level of support based on their response to a closed question in our online survey asking respondents to state their support for the extension of the P5 bus route. Where this closed question had not been answered, we show our interpretation of each respondent’s level of support based on their comments. Where the level of support was not clear from the comments ‘no opinion’ has been recorded. Where we have inferred the level of support, this is stated in the summary below.

5.5.1 Local authorities and statutory bodies

London Borough of Lambeth

Partially supported the extension (inferred from response)

The London Borough of Lambeth welcomed the extension of the P5 bus route. However, there are a number of concerns which they would like to see addressed before the scheme is progressed. These include safety concerns over the opening of Thessaly Road due to historic accidents; and the associated pedestrian safety concerns with buses turning into Thessaly Road, coupled with the reduction of footway space for pedestrians to make way for footway parking.

They also raised concerns regarding cyclist safety on Wandsworth Road where buses are turning into Thessaly Road, crossing the path of on-coming cyclists.

Lambeth has seen a reduction in bus use due to poor reliability and lower levels of accessibility in central London. In their view, the extension of this route would not be able to meet the increasing demand in the Vauxhall and Nine Elms Battersea areas, and additional bus routes and capacity require consideration.

London Borough of Wandsworth

Strongly opposed the extension (inferred from response)

The London Borough of Wandsworth has developed a preferred design for improving the sense of place and conditions for pedestrians and cyclists on Thessaly Road, including some options for parking control. This design does not include the re-opening of Thessaly Road to traffic.

The Borough strongly opposed the reopening of Thessaly Road and advised not to proceed with the scheme as there is no local support for it and substantial opposition. In their view, the scheme does not address the safety concerns of local residents, which focused on the increased risk of road related injury or death associated with re-opening the road.

5.5.2 Politicians, Government departments and Parliamentary bodies

Conservative candidates for local elections in 2018 for Queenstown Ward (Councillors Marie Hanson, Sergei Cristo and Justin Taylor)

Partially opposed the extension (inferred from response)

The Conservative candidates for local elections in 2018 for Queenstown Ward noted some concerns with the proposals for the P5 bus route and stated that until these issues were addressed, the scheme should not go ahead. Their specific concerns were:

• Thessaly Road is narrow and not suited to public transport vehicles. They were concerned about the accident risk of opening the road, citing several accidents that occurred when the road was previously open to traffic. They did not feel the proposals addressed safety issues • They did not feel a satisfactory means of enforcing the bus and cyclist only access to Thessaly Road has been agreed • They were concerned about the loss of parking and lack of alternatives for those currently using the spaces on Thessaly Road • They also stated that the proposals would not allow servicing and delivery vehicles, particularly refuse vehicles, to get down Thessaly Road

Councillor Jim Maddan, former Mayor of Wandsworth

Strongly opposed the extension (inferred from response)

Councillor Maddan raised concerns about the opening up of Thessaly Road naming the fatal accidents involving children in the early 1970s. He explained that the barrier that was installed and remained in place stopped any further accidents occurring.

Councillor Maddan expressed that local residents were unhappy about reopening the road to facilitate the P5 extension. Finally he requested we do not take forward these proposals but instead consider the alternatives offered by Wandsworth council officers.

Marsha de Cordova, MP for Battersea

Strongly opposed the extension (inferred from response)

Marsha de Cordova and her constituents living in and around the area were strongly opposed to the re-opening of Thessaly Road due to safety concerns; noting that there were two child fatalities when it was originally a through road. She also raised concern that the bus and cycle only access would increase the accident risk and that it would be difficult to enforce the access restrictions, particularly for motorcycles and scooters. She would welcome a discussion about the possible alternatives to serving the new developments in Nine Elms without re-opening Thessaly Road.

Leonie Cooper, Assembly Member for Wandsworth and Merton

Partially opposed the extension (inferred from response)

Leonie Cooper expressed similar concerns of local residents about the proposed reopening of Thessaly Road for bus access. She suggested this would be a safety concern and should not happen.

5.5.3 Emergency services

Metropolitan Police

No opinion (inferred from response)

The Metropolitan Police had no objection to the scheme but urged consideration to the use of camera enforcement at this junction.

5.5.4 Transport and road user groups

London TravelWatch

Strongly supported the extension

London TravelWatch supported the extension of the P5 bus route. However, they did not believe parking should be relocated onto the pavement at this makes it difficult for pedestrians, particularly those that already have difficulty negotiating London’s streets, to use Thessaly Road.

5.5.5 Local interest groups

Savona Residents’ Association

Strongly opposed the extension (inferred from response)

Savona Residents’ Association strongly opposed the re-opening of Thessaly Road and wanted to see the views of local residents fully addressed in the scheme proposals before it proceeds. The Residents’ Association do not feel the narrow road is suited for buses and are concerned with the safety of children and the elderly, citing the previous fatalities that occurred on this road. They did not feel these safety issues have been fully considered in the formulation of the proposals. Furthermore, they are unconvinced that restricted access onto Thessaly Road can be enforced, which may lead to further increased moped traffic on the estate.

Residents were also concerned with the removal of parking spaces. There is a current shortage of parking bays in the area. They felt this issue would only get worse when the new underground station opens, alongside competition from workers and visitors to Battersea Power Station.

They also feared that the re-routed P5 will hinder waste collection vehicles on Thessaly Road. In addition, the Residents’ Association believed the new junction would add to congestion, slow down traffic and increase pollution.

Finally, they strongly objected to the removal of trees and would like to see firm plans and commitments to planting more trees on Battersea Park Road.

Carey Gardens Cooperative

Strongly opposed the extension

The Carey Gardens Cooperative were against the proposed changes to the P5 bus route and opening of Thessaly Road to buses and cyclists because of the accident risk, particularly to school children. They did not feel this scheme would benefit residents of the local Carey Gardens, Savona and Patmore Estates and indicated that there would be the Northern Line Extension and several other bus routes to serve the new developments around Battersea Power Station.

RANDON 1TRA

Neither supported nor opposed the extension

RANDON 1TRA pointed out that if the P5 route was extended then the frequency of the bus service would need to be increased.

5.5.6 Local Businesses

Battersea Power Station

Strongly opposed the extension (inferred from response)

Battersea Power Station (BPS) have Outline Planning Permission (OPP) for the redevelopment of the Battersea Power Station masterplan site, the Sleaford Crest Industrial Estate Site and the redevelopment of Cringle Dock Waste Transfer Station all of which are located within the vicinity of the P5 bus route. BPS supported the principles of a co-ordinated transport corridor along Battersea Park Road and Nine Elms Lane. However, they were unable to support the proposed amendments to the P5 bus route. They urged more appropriate bus provision as they felt these proposals would generate very limited transport accessibility improvements.

BPS raised concern over the following issues regarding the extension of the P5 bus: • Limited value in extension of P5, given that BPS is already within 250 metres of the P5 route on Ascalon Street and the extension has no impact on Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating • Journey times would not be any quicker on the P5 in comparison to alternative means of public transport, primarily the extension of the Northern Line, so there would be limited long-term benefit in extending the P5 bus route. In their view, bus route upgrades should target areas which do not benefit from the Northern Line extension • Creation of a signalised junction would have a detrimental impact upon highway and junction capacity particularly at Battersea Park Road/Savona Street/Prospect Way, creating queuing that would extend significantly beyond and in between the newly proposed access at Thessaly Road • Reduced quality of pedestrian links between Battersea Power Station and Battersea Power Station Underground station and the westbound Battersea Park Road bus route due to the addition of a pedestrian crossing. Pedestrians wishing to interchange from the Underground to a western bus route would have to negotiate three separate pedestrian signals, as opposed to two if the junction is not created • It is assumed that buses will have to turn at the west end of Cringle Street but providing a bus route on Cringle Street is contrary to the planning permission for the BPS site, and conflicts with the access needs of residents, visitors and servicing vehicles • The enforcement of cycles and bus only access to Thessaly Road was not been made clear in the consultation documents • Potential impacts of opening up Thessaly Road on its neighbours

BPS requested further information on the highway modelling that has been undertaken and would welcome further discussions with TfL, London Borough of

Wandsworth and London Buses on the issues raised. They also noted that the creation of a new junction between Battersea Park Road and Thessaly Road does not form part of BPS’s Section 106 obligations and therefore would not be funded by them.

5.6 Petitions and campaigns

Petitions involve people adding their names to either a paper or electronic list, backing the views of the petition organiser. Campaigns involve people copying text from another individual or group, and submitting this text as all or part of their response. We have reported the two petitions identified as part of the P5 extension consultation below.

For copies of the original text for the petitions listed below, please go to Appendix D.

5.6.1 Petitions

Carey Gardens Cooperative

A petition of 201 names was submitted by the Carey Garden Cooperative, strongly objecting to the P5 extension proposals on the grounds of the increased risk of road related injury or death associated with the reopening of Thessaly Road.

Savona Residents’ Association

A petition of 33 names was submitted by the Savona Residents’ Association, strongly objecting to the reopening of Thessaly Road on the grounds of safety, particularly the increased accident risk to children and the elderly. They also raised concerns about the ability to enforce the access restrictions, the removal of parking spaces, the re-routing of P5 hindering waste collection vehicles along Thessaly Road, and increased congestion generating increased air pollution. They raised strong opposition to the removal of trees and introduction of large paved areas.

5.7 Summary of comments from events

We held four drop-in sessions and attended two public meetings about the P5 extension proposals (see Section 3.7.6). The main themes or issues to emerge from these events and meetings were:

 Safety concerns regarding the re-opening of Thessaly Road  Clarity on who and what would the extension serve and what are the benefits

 Concern regarding parking reduction on Thessaly Road which is already heavily used and there is a shortage  Concern regarding noise and air pollution from residents living on Thessaly Road  Whether we have considered other bus routes that could serve Battersea Power Station. What other options have been explored and why has the P5 been chosen  Queries about whether any new bus stops would be installed and where  Some attendees visited the events to register their opposition, others thought the extension would provide a useful link

5.8 Comments on the consultation material

37 comments were made on the quality of the consultation materials for the proposed P5 extension. The table below shows the most frequently raised issues in responses to this question. Detailed analysis of all questions can be found in Appendix A.

Issues Total Missing information 16 Delivery of information 7 Engagement with the community 4

6. Next steps

Although there is strong opposition to the proposal to re-open Thessaly Road to buses and cycles only, there is also strong support for creating new bus links to the large scale development at Battersea Power Station (BPS). Other options to create these links will now be re-examined. However, it should be noted that there are very limited opportunities to create new direct bus links between the new major employment and housing area at BPS and large parts of LB Lambeth due to the barrier formed by the railway and other long standing infrastructure.

We will have further discussions with the London Borough of Wandsworth to see if the safety issues raised can be mitigated. Therefore, the proposals for a bus and cycle only exit/entrance to the junction are put on hold at this time.

It is proposed to provide controlled cycle movements into and out of Thessaly Road, with other traffic movements prohibited with the use of physical barriers. These measures will be ‘light touch’, so that any future proposals for the junction can be investigated as required.

Depending on the scheme we take forward, we may not consult again but would engage with the local community to ensure any further concerns are addressed.

Appendix A: Detailed analysis of comments

All respondents were invited to provide comments through an open question, but it was not mandatory to do so. In this appendix we summarise the issues that were raised in these comments.

All percentages are calculated from the total number of comments received to the question. Where percentages do not total this is due to rounding.

Comments on proposals for the extension to the P5 bus route

140 respondents provided a response to the question asking for comments on all proposals related to the P5 bus route extension, generating 393 comments. The issues raised are described below.

Bus route and frequency

173 (44%) comments on the P5 extension proposals referenced the bus route and frequency.

126 (32%) comments were made expressing opposition to the extension of the P5 route. Of these:

 52 (13%) respondents referenced the transport network in their objection to extension. Of which: o 28 (7%) cited that the existing bus network was sufficient o 18 (5%) felt that the P5 extension was unnecessary due to the extension of the London Underground Northern Line o 6 (2%) were against the extension of the P5 route due to general public transport in the area being sufficient  23 (6%) respondents expressed opposition to the extension of P5, without providing further reasoning  15 (4%) respondents suggested that the extension of P5 is unnecessary for Battersea Park residents  11 (3%) respondents were opposed due to increased congestion generated by the extension  5 (1%) respondents said that the extension would be a waste of money  5 (1%) respondents noted that the extension of the P5 route would not be beneficial to vulnerable users  4 (1%) respondents said that extension would cause disruption to waste collection  3 (1%) respondents were concerned that the extension may negatively impact the reliability of the service  3 (1%) respondents noted that the P5 should not be extended in favour of extension of alternative bus routes  2 (1%) respondents felt that the route should utilise the existing access at Stewart’s Road  2 (1%) respondents commented that the road network would be too narrow for buses to access

 1 (<1%) respondent stated that the extension of P5 would have a negative impact on pedestrian links

28 (7%) comments on the bus route and frequency were in favour of the extension of P5. Of these:

 18 (5%) respondents expressed support for the extension of P5 with no further reasoning  5 (1%) respondents felt that it would improve access to and from Battersea  1 (<1%) respondent stated that the extension would benefit vulnerable members of society  1 (<1%) respondent cited that the extension would increase user demand along the P5 route  1 (<1%) respondent noted that the extension would be beneficial to cyclists  1 (<1%) respondent believed that the extension of the P5 route would act as a catalyst for local growth  1 (<1%) respondent felt that the extension would improve cycling accessibility

16 (4%) comments were made requesting an increase in the frequency of the P5 service. Of these:

 11 (3%) respondents requested to see an increase in frequency in order to increase capacity  4 (1%) respondents wanted to see an increase in frequency without giving a specific reason  1 (<1%) respondent wanted an earlier start to P5 bus services in the morning

2 (1%) comments were made on the routing of the P5 extension. Of these:

 1 (<1%) respondent suggested that the P5 route should be made two-way  1 (<1%) respondent felt that the extension should be used to improve connectivity to key local facilities

1 (<1%) respondent requested that the extension should use double decker buses to increase the capacity of the route.

Safety

71 (18%) comments were made on safety.

43 (11%) comments were made in relation to the safety of children in the area. Of these:

 25 (6%) respondents cited historic incidents of child fatalities/injuries when Thessaly Road was open to motor traffic  9 (2%) respondents expressed concern over the proximity of schools to the proposed bus route  7 (2%) respondents expressed concern over the safety of children generally in the area

 2 (1%) respondents mentioned concern over the safety of children playing within the area

9 (2%) respondents had concerns about the safety of pedestrians in relation to the proposed extension of the bus route.

6 (2%) respondents raised concerns over safety due to an increase in the level of traffic following the extension.

6 (2%) respondents suggested that the extension of the bus route would result in an increase in crime on the Patmore Estate.

4 (1%) respondents cited concern over safety without giving a specific reason.

3 (1%) comments were made in relation to the safety of cyclists. Of these:  2 (1%) respondents noted their concern over the safety of cyclists in relation to the P5 extension  1 (<1%) respondent cited concern over the safety of cyclists on Wandsworth Road as buses would be crossing into the path of on-coming cyclists to turn into Thessaly Road

Enforcement

56 (14%) comments were made on the enforcement of buses and cyclists-only access to Thessaly Road. Of these:

44 (11%) respondents felt that the enforcement of the proposed arrangements would not be possible. Of these:

 33 (8%) respondents did not give a specific reason  11 (3%) respondents noted that motorcycle enforcement in particular would not be possible

5 (2%) comments were made recommending methods of enforcement to restrict access. Of these:

 3 (1%) respondents felt that cameras would be sufficient to enforce the necessary restrictions  1 (<1%) respondent opposed the use of cameras and felt it would not be sufficient to prevent the use of Thessaly Road as a through route  1 (<1%) respondent suggested the implementation of a bus gate at the junction of Thessaly Road / Battersea Park Road, with the use of automated number place recognition technology to allow buses to use the route

4 (1%) comments were made that suggested restricted access along Thessaly Road should not be enforced. Of these:

 3 (1%) respondents suggested that access for all vehicles should be provided along Thessaly Road

 1 (<1%) respondent felt that access should be granted for taxis along Thessaly Road

3 (1%) respondents recommended that traffic calming measures should be introduced.

Environment

38 (10%) comments were made on environmental issues related to the proposed extension of the P5 bus route.

26 (7%) comments made raised concerns over an increase in pollution. Of these:

 15 (4%) respondents were concerned about an increase in noise pollution, of which 9 (2%) specified the cause as increased congestion  9 (2%) respondents were concerned about an increase in air pollution, of which 5 (1%) specified the cause as increased congestion and 2 (1%) respondents suggested hybrid buses should be used  2 (1%) respondents felt that pollution would worsen due to an increase in congestion, but did not specify the type of pollution

12 (3%) comments were made on the planting within the impacted area. Of which:

 6 (2%) respondents opposed the removal of trees as part of the proposal  3 (1%) respondents wish to see more trees planted  3 (1%) respondents opposed the removal of planters

Parking

41 (10%) comments made reference to parking when considering the proposed extension of the P5.

35 (9%) respondents were opposed to the proposed removal of parking along Thessaly Road. Of these:

 17 (4%) respondents did not want parking removed due to an existing shortage of parking in the area  8 (2%) respondents did not want parking to be removed without giving a specific reason  4 (1%) respondents opposed the proposal due to safety concerns over the implementation of footway parking  5 (1%) did not want parking removed, as the parking spaces are required for locals, of which 1 (<1%) respondent noted that in particular during the construction phase  1 (<1%) respondent opposed the proposed removal of parking as it would be detrimental to those with disabilities

4 (1%) respondents suggested that parking restrictions should be introduced. Of these:

 2 (1%) respondents noted that stricter restrictions should be put in place, but did not give a specific reason why  1 (<1%) respondent suggested that parking should be limited to one side of the road  1 (<1%) respondent raised the idea of stricter parking restrictions via the implementation of a Controlled Parking Zone

1 (<1%) respondent recommended an increase in car club provisions to alleviate parking issues in the local area.

1 (<1%) respondent felt that parking should be removed from Thessaly Road.

Santander Cycles

6 (2%) respondents opposed the reallocation of the Santander bikes docking station, stating that the relocation of the dock would impact upon their quality of life and/or ability to access the workplace.

Non-specific comments

3 (1%) respondents made comments that were unrelated to the proposal and as a result were unable to be classified.

2 (1%) respondents made positive comments about the proposal but did not provide any further detail.

1 (<1%) respondent provided a negative comment about the proposal but did not provide any further detail.

1 (<1%) respondent provided a comment that was deemed nonsensical.

Comments on the consultation material

A total of 37 comments were received on the quality of the consultation materials provided in the extension of P5 to Battersea Power Station.

26 (70%) comments were made on the quality of information provided. Of these:

 16 (43%) respondents stated that there was missing information from the consultation materials. Of these: o 3 (12%) respondents said there was a lack of information regarding junction enforcement o 2 (5%) respondents commented saying that projections for additional passengers were omitted from the consultation materials o 1 (3%) respondent commented on the lack of data concerning the current levels of P5 bus route usage within the materials o 1 (3%) respondent commented on a lack of information on the location of bus stops o 1 (3%) respondent noted that information regarding Option A was not included within the materials provided o 1 (3%) respondent commented on a lack of information on other changes that will take place to the existing route o 1 (3%) respondent commented on a lack of information on the timescales of the work required for extension o 1 (3%) respondent cited a lack of information on the relocation of the Santander bikes docking station o 1 (3%) respondent noted a lack of information on safety issues within the consultation o 1 (3%) respondent noted the absence of a safety assessment within the consultation materials o 1 (3%) respondent said that there was parking information missing from the consultation materials o 1 (3%) respondent commented on insufficient information regarding refuse collection o 1 (3%) respondent commented on a lack of information outlining the value of the extension of the route P5  5 (14%) respondents included positive comments within their response on the general materials of the consultation  2 (5%) respondents noted that factually incorrect information was provided, due to the school included on the map no longer existing  2 (5%) respondents stated that there was a lack of clarity within the maps provided as part of the consultation materials  1 (3%) respondent was satisfied with the maps provided, stating that they were easy to interpret and understand

7 (19%) comments were made on the delivery of information. Of these:

 2 (5%) respondents to the question stated that the posted material should not have come in plain envelopes as it could be easily mistaken for junk mail  2 (5%) respondents claimed that local residents did not receive any posted consultation information  1 (3%) respondent noted that it was difficult to find the survey link from the website when attempting to access consultation materials online  1 (3%) respondent commented that they did not receive an email regarding the consultation  1 (3%) respondent made a negative comment about the general delivery of information

4 (11%) comments were made on the overall engagement of the consultation within the community. Of which:

 2 (5%) respondents made a positive remark regarding the overall engagement of the consultation  1 (4%) respondent felt that more engagement with local residents was required  1 (4%) respondent commented on how online materials excluded non- computer users

Appendix B: Consultation materials

This section includes the following:

1. The material that was included on our consultation web page 2. The questions we asked on our consultation survey 3. The letter that was sent to residents and businesses close to the proposed extension route 4. A map of the distribution area for the letter 5. Copies of the material that was used as part of our consultation drop-in events 6. A copy of the email that was sent to registered users of our services 7. A copy of the email that was sent to stakeholder organisations at the beginning of the consultation

Example of text used on our consultation web page

Below is the text from our consultation webpage at tfl.gov.uk/p5-extension

Overview

The London bus network is kept under regular review. As part of this, we develop proposals for changes to services.

We are proposing to extend bus route P5 to Battersea Power Station to meet increasing demand due to major development in the area.

What are we proposing?

We’d like to hear your views on extending bus route P5 to Battersea Power Station.

At present, route P5 runs between Elephant & Castle and Nine Elms, Patmore Estate every 15 minutes during Monday to Saturday daytimes and every 20 minutes during Sundays and all evenings, using single deck buses.

We propose extending the route from Thessaly Road via Battersea Park Road and Kirtling Street to Battersea Power Station. Towards Elephant & Castle the route would run from Battersea Power Station via Kirtling Street, Battersea Park Road, Thessaly Road, Ascalon Street, Stewart’s Road and Wandsworth Road to current line of route.

Thessaly Road would be open to buses and cyclists only. We currently have no plans to open this road for other vehicles.

Why are we proposing this?

We will launch a consultation on changes to the road layout on Nine Elms Lane and Battersea Park Road on Monday 3 July 2017, which includes some side roads that an extended route P5 would serve. Please click below to see our consultation for Nine Elms Lane and Battersea Park Road

The proposed changes to Nine Elms Lane and Battersea Park Road are separate to the P5, and one scheme could be progressed without the other. However if both were to go ahead we would coordinate works to minimise disruption.

Works required to facilitate the extension of route P5 In order to facilitate the extension via Thessaly Road, we would need to make alterations to the highway to enable buses to use the road.

The following changes would be required:

 The existing on-street parking bay opposite the current Santander cycle docking station would be shortened by 20 metres to provide a passing place  The existing on-street parking bay outside 1 – 65 Thessaly House would need to be converted to part footway parking  The existing on-street parking bay outside 182 -192 Thessaly Road would need to be shortened by 5 metres to provide a passing place  The existing on-street parking bay opposite 158 - 176 Thessaly Road would need to be converted to footway parking to create space  The existing on-street parking outside 160 - 176 Thessaly Road would need to be shorted by 20 metres to provide a passing place  The existing on-street parking bay opposite 160 Thessaly Road would need to be removed to provide a passing place  The surface would be slightly raised at the junction of Thessaly Road with Ascalon Street to provide a traffic calming measure  Some footway realignment work would be required on the junction where Thessaly Road meets Ascalon Street to provide sufficient space for passing buses  The existing tree on the south east corner of Battersea Park Road would need to be removed to allow visibility for buses and cyclists turning left from Battersea Park Road  The planting at the northern end of Thessaly Road would need removal to open up the road for access  Thessaly Road would need to be opened up for buses and cyclists only

Should the extension to Route P5 be approved, the access to and from Thessaly Road would be enforced for buses and cyclists only.

We welcome your comments on enforcement methods, which are yet to be determined.

Next steps

We will analyse and consider all of the responses received to the consultation, and publish our response later this year. Construction of the extension would be subject to the outcome of this consultation, and further approvals. Should we decide to go ahead, we would aim to start construction in 2020/2021.

Have your say

We would like to know what you think about our proposals for extending route P5

Please give us your views by completing the survey by Sunday 20 August 2017.

Alternatively, you can:

 Email us at [email protected]  Write to us at FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS  or phone us on 0343 222 1155*

*Service and network charges may apply

You can also request paper copies of plans and a response form, copies in Braille, large text or another language by emailing [email protected], writing to FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS, or calling 0343 222 1155.

Public exhibitions

We will be holding the following public exhibitions in your area, where you can view the proposals, speak to members of the project team and ask questions:

Life Tabernacle Church, 32 Battersea Park Rd SW11 4HY Thursday 6 July, 1530-1900

New Covent Garden Market, Nine Elms Lane SW8 5BH Sunday 9 July, 0800-1400

Life Tabernacle Church, 32 Battersea Park Rd SW11 4HY Thursday 20 July, 1530-1900

Embassy Gardens, New Union Square (adjacent to Waitrose Nine Elms store), 5 Nine Elms Lane SW8 5DA Wednesday 26 July, 1730-1930

Our consultation questionnaire

We asked eight questions specific to the consultation and a group of questions asking for information about the respondents.

Questions about the proposals

Do you currently use route P5? Yes, No

Do you support our proposals for extending route P5 to Battersea Power Station? Strongly support, Partially Support, Neither support nor oppose, Partially oppose, Strongly oppose, No opinion

Do you support our proposals to shorten the existing on-street parking to provide passing space? Strongly support, Partially Support, Neither support nor oppose, Partially oppose, Strongly oppose, No opinion

Do you support our proposals to convert existing on-street parking to footway parking? Strongly support, Partially Support, Neither support nor oppose, Partially oppose, Strongly oppose, No opinion

Do you support our proposal to install traffic calming at the junction of Thessaly Road with Ascalon Street? Strongly support, Partially Support, Neither support nor oppose, Partially oppose, Strongly oppose, No opinion

Do you have any comments on our proposals?

What do 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.)? Very good, Good, Acceptable, Poor, Very poor

Do you have any further comments about the quality of the consultation material?

Questions about the respondents

What is your name?

What is your email address?

Please provide us with your postcode?

Are you (please tick all boxes that apply): Local resident, Business Owner, Employed locally, Visitor to the area, Commuter to the area, Not local but interested in the scheme, Other (Please specify)

If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group, please provide us with the name:

How did you find out about this consultation? Received an email from TfL, Received a letter from TfL, Read about in the press, Saw it on the TfL website, Social media, Other (please specify)

Letter to local residents and businesses

Distribution area of consultation letter

The consultation letter was sent to all addresses (in total, over 5,000) within the distribution area shown in red:

Materials used at consultation events (paper questionnaires were also available)

Email to users of route P5

Email to stakeholders

Appendix C: List of stakeholders consulted

London TravelWatch

Local Authorities London Borough of Lambeth London Borough of Wandsworth

Elected Members Val Shawcross Deputy Mayor Caroline Pidgeon Assembly Member Nicky Gavron Assembly Member Shaun Bailey Assembly Member Kemi Badenoch Assembly Member Sian Berry Assembly Member Florence Eshalomi Assembly Member David Kurten Assembly Member Caroline Russell Assembly Member Peter Whittle Assembly Member Tim Steer Assembly Member Claire Hamilton Assembly Member Andrew Boff Assembly Member Tom Copley Assembly Member Fiona Twycross Assembly Member Chuka Umunna MP Streatham Helen Hayes MP Dulwich and West Norwood Kate Hoey MP Vauxhall Neil Coyle MP Bermondsey & Old Southwark Jane Ellison MP Battersea Justine Greening MP Putney, Roehampton and Southfields Rosena Allin-Khan MP Tooting Linda Bray Clapham Town Nigel Haselden Clapham Town Christopher Wellbelove Clapham Town Paul Mcglone Ferndale Sally Prentice Ferndale Neil Sabharwal Ferndale Marsha De Cordova Larkhall Christiana Valcarel Larkhall Andrew Wilson Larkhall Alex Bingham Stockwell Guiherme Rosa Stockwell Imogen Walker Stockwell Johnathan Cook Shaftesbury James Cousins Shaftesbury Guy Senior Shaftesbury Aydin Dikerdem Queenstown Marie Hanson Queenstown Nicola Nardeli Queenstown Tony Belton Latchmere Simon Hogg Latchmere Wendy Speck Latchmere

Police / Health / Fire Authorities Lambeth Safer Transport Team London Ambulance Service Metropolitan Police Service NHS CCG Wandsworth Wandsworth Safer Transport Team

Transport Groups Department for Transport Eurostar Group ICE - London London Tourist Coach Operators Association London Omnibus Traction Society TPH Heathrow

Accessibility Groups RNIB Disability Rights UK Living Streets National Autistic Society Organisation of Blind Afro Carribeans Wandsworth Access Association

Other Stakeholders and Local Interest Groups Allen Edwards Primary School Bankside Residents’ Forum Battersea Society Carey Gardens Co-operation Residents’ Association Chesterton Primary School Clapham Society Clapham Transport Users Group Griffin Primary School Heathbrook Primary School Herne Hill Forum John Burns Primary School London Cycling Campaign (Lambeth) London Cycling Campaign (Wandsworth) Newton Preparatory School Patmore Housing Association Platanos College Putney Society Putney Traffic Transport and Parking Working Group Raynes Park & West Barnes Residents’ Association Royal Mail Savona Residents’ Association Shaftesbury Park School South Mobility Forum Wandsworth St George’s Battersea Church of England Primary School St Mary’s RC Primary School Streatham Business Improvement District Streatham Vale Property Occupiers Association Vauxhall Gardens Estate Tenants & Residents’ Association Virtual Norwood Forum

Appendix D: Petitions

We have reproduced the text that was provided with the petitions as reported in section 5.6.

Petition text from Carey Gardens Cooperation

“Stop the reopening of Thessaly Road Petition!

I am aware that TFL are consulting on the potential reopening of Thessaly Road to buses. I the undersigned strongly object to this proposal due to the increased risk of road related injury or death associated with the reopening of this road. I consent to Carey Gardens Cooperation submitting this petition to my local MP, Councillors, Senior Officers at Wandsworth Council and Transport for London (TFL)”

Petition text from Savona Residents’ Association “Savona Residents’ submission to TfL’s ongoing consultations on the proposed reopening of Thessaly Road and changes to P5 bus service

Thessaly Road is a residential street which is not suitable for public transportation. It is a narrow road which has been closed at Battersea Park Road as there have been several fatal accidents here. Residents raised grave concerns about safety of children and the elderly using the road. In the consultation papers, there is no evidence that a thorough assessment of safety issues has been made by TfL when formulating the current proposals now out for consultation.

While the current TfL proposal is that the road will be open for buses and cyclists, residents were not convinced that sufficient thought had been given to enforcing this. In the last couple of years, the Savona Estate has seen a significant increase in mo-ped traffic through the Estate and residents are concerned that the problem will be exacerbated with the opening up of Thessaly Road.

TFL’s proposal will see a reduction of parking bays on Thessaly Road. However, there already is a shortage of parking spaces for residents. Currently workers on the neighbouring construction sites take up most of the parking bays and residents are forced to park on other roads in the area. TFL’s assumption that the situation would improve at the end of the construction phase is incorrect as then, there will be severe competition for the available spaces from commuters using the new underground station, workers on and visitors to the Power Station site.

The rerouted P5 would also hinder the movement of waste collection vehicles on Thessaly Road. Residents have fought for several years to get ‘No waiting’ restrictions introduced at the junction of Thessaly Road/Ascalon Street to resolve the problem of missed collections and fear that these proposals would see the problem return.

It was recently reported that Battersea Park Road was one of the most polluted Road in London. Therefore opening up Thessaly Road and creating a signalised junction on Battersea Park Road will add to the congestion, slow down traffic and increase pollution. The proposal also seeks to cut down trees and introduce large paved areas. There was strong opposition to this. TfL says that more trees will be planted on Battersea Park Road in liaison with the developers in the area. We would like to see specific plans laid out as part of any proposal and a firm undertaking given.

In conclusion, we believe that TfL’s current proposals have not given sufficient consideration to key questions vital to the local community and should not proceed any further until the concerns raised are addressed to the satisfaction of most local residents.”