London Overground Extension to Barking Riverside

London Overground extension to Barking Riverside

Spring 2015 public consultation report

London Overground extension to Barking Riverside

Spring 2015 public consultation report Published September 2015

Contents

1 Executive Summary...... 4 2 Introduction ...... 8 3 Background to the scheme ...... 10 4 Methodology ...... 11 5 Overview of consultation responses ...... 14 6 Analysis of consultation responses ...... 16 7 Responses from stakeholders ...... 29 8 Conclusion ...... 35 9 Next steps ...... 35 Appendix A1 – Comments raised for Question 9 ...... 36 Appendix A2 – Comments raised for Question 10 ...... 38 Appendix A3 – Comments raised for Question 11 ...... 40 Appendix A4 – Comments raised for Question 12 ...... 43 Appendix B – Copy of the consultation letter ...... 44 Appendix C – Letter distribution area ...... 45 Appendix D – 19 June letter to Choats Road (IG11 0X_) ...... 46 Appendix E – Letter to Stakeholders ...... 47 Appendix F – Email to Stakeholders ...... 48 Appendix G – List of stakeholders consulted ...... 49 Appendix H – Copy of the consultation leaflet...... 53 Appendix I – Public events ...... 60 Appendix J – Message to Oyster users ...... 61 Appendix K – Press advert...... 62 Appendix L – Press release ...... 63 Appendix M - Response to questions ...... 64

1 Executive Summary

1.1 In spring 2015 Transport for London (TfL) conducted a seven week public consultation on the proposal to extend the London Overground Gospel Oak to Barking line from Barking to the Barking Riverside development. The consultation ran from 11 May 2015 to 28 June 2015.

1.2 This was a second round of consultation on the proposed extension. A high level consultation on the principle of the scheme was undertaken in the autumn of 2014, 90% of respondents to which said they supported the scheme in principle1.

1.3 The spring 2015 consultation asked again for views on the principle of an extension and for comments on two possible route options – alignment A and alignment B. Information about the proposals was made available online and included supporting information in the form of factsheets and two reports: a transport options summary and a route option assessment.2 The reports explained what other options had been investigated and how TfL had arrived at the two proposed route options for a London Overground extension. The proposals could also be viewed and commented upon at a number of consultation events, including roadshow events and meetings with residents associations.

1.4 Consultees were invited to give their views either by filling in an online questionnaire or by responding via post or email. Paper copies of the consultation were available on request, together with the questionnaire. All the documentation was available on request in alternative formats such as large print, audio or another language.

1.5 The consultation was supported by a marketing campaign which included:

 Sending a letter explaining the project and the consultation to 27,000 addresses in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham  Sending over 42,000 emails about the consultation to Oyster users in the Borough who had signed up for updates  Sending letters and emails to local, London wide and national statutory and non-statutory stakeholder groups  Adverts in the local press, included in Appendix K  A press release, included in Appendix L  Organising two roadshow events; one at Barking Learning Library and one at the Rivergate Centre, Barking Riverside  Organising and participating in five meetings with residents’ associations  The face to face distribution of 2,000 consultation leaflets in the borough  Tweeting updates on the TfL twitter account to alert/remind people about the consultation and the roadshow events  The distribution of 2,000 consultation leaflets between Thames View and Richard Carey primary schools

1 Details of the 2014 consultation are available at tfl.gov.uk/gospeloak-barking

2 The supporting documentation is available at tfl.gov.uk/barking-riverside-consult 4

1.6 In the consultation questionnaire TfL asked the following questions about the proposals:

 In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking Riverside?  Do you have a preferred alignment?  Do you have any comments to make about route option A?  Do you have any comments to make about route option B?  Do you have any other comments about the proposals?  Do you have any other comments about the consultation? (Clarity of information, the supporting documents, roadshows, etc.)

1.7 The consultation generated 600 responses, including 22 stakeholder responses. 587 respondents expressed a view on the principle of the scheme and the result was overwhelming positive, with 532 (90%) responding that they supported an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking Riverside in principle.

1.8 398 respondents answered the question regarding their preference for route option A or route option B. 36 (9%) respondents said they preferred option A, while 211 (55%) said they preferred option B; 110 respondents (28%) had no preference and 31 (8%) did not support either option.

1.9 A comprehensive breakdown of these figures is given in section 6 of this report (Analysis of consultation responses). The responses are reported on firstly as a whole and then by those responding from within the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, which is where the extension would be built. In addition the responses from residents from the Choats Road/Great Fleete Way area, with post codes beginning IG11 0X_ are reported on. These responses have been drawn out as they are the closest existing residents to any new viaduct with either option. A map showing the area highlighted in red is included below.

Figure 1: Map highlighting properties in the Choats Road/Great Fleete Way area

1.10 Section 6 is supported by a comprehensive summary of all the comments received during the consultation in Appendices A1, A2, A3 and A4. The main positive themes which emerged are:

 Support for the proposal because it would help the area to grow  Support for the proposal because it would improve transport accessibility  Statements of support for route option B.

1.11 Some of the key issues and concerns are summarised as:

 The ability of Barking Station to accommodate extra passengers  How new train services would be accommodated on the Tilbury line alongside existing c2c and freight services  Impacts to existing residents, particularly those living to the east of Renwick Road who would be the nearest existing residents to any new viaduct  Comments on passive provision for a second station near Renwick Road; as some asked for a second station to be delivered as part of the project.

1.12 Some consultees also asked about a further extension south of the River Thames, to Thamesmead and Abbey Wood. While such an extension is outside the scope of the project, comments are reflected in section 6 of this report (Analysis of consultation responses) and section 7 (Responses from stakeholders). Full details of all the consultation responses are available in Appendices A1 to A4. TfL responds to the comments regarding an extension south of the river and other issues in Answers to questions, which is included as Appendix M on page 64.

1.13 This report is published on the project website: tfl.gov.uk/barking-riverside-consult. In addition, everyone who contacted TfL in response to the consultation with an email or postal address will be notified that the consultation report is available and provided with details of how to access the report.

1.14 Work on the project continues. A third round of public consultation is anticipated later in 2015, when further views will be sought on the preferred route option. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, TfL intends to apply for powers to build and operate a railway extension through a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) in spring 2016.

1.15 Consultation and engagement on the proposals for a London Overground extension is ongoing with interested parties, whose land or business operations may be impacted by the scheme. Where residents may be affected by the proposals, TfL will also continue to meet with resident associations. The project email address remains active and TfL will continue to respond to any individual requests for information by email, by phone or in writing. TfL’s contact information is:

 Freepost TfL Consultations  [email protected]  t. 0343 222 1155

1.16 Report structure

 Section 2 is a high level explanation of what was proposed  Section 3 provides the background to the scheme and explains why it is necessary  Section 4 describes how TfL consulted  Section 5 explains who responded and which questions they answered  Section 6 explains what consultees had to say, introduces the quantitative and qualitative approach taken in the analysis of comments, together with a breakdown of the headline results. (The full results are reported in appendices A1 to A4)  Section 7 provides a summary of stakeholder responses  Section 8 is the conclusion of the report  Section 9 describes the next steps subsequent to this consultation.  Appendices A1, A2, A3 and A4 provide a comprehensive summary of all responses  The remaining appendices are a record of the consultation materials and methods

2 Introduction

2.1 Transport for London (TfL) is considering a 4km extension (1.5km of new track) of the London Overground Gospel Oak to Barking line. The extension would run from Barking to the Barking Riverside development in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham.

2.2 TfL undertook a first round of public consultation on the outline proposals between 8 September 2014 and 19 October 2014. TfL received 714 responses and the result was overwhelmingly positive, with 654 (91%) saying that in principle, they supported an extension of the London Overground from Barking to Barking Riverside3. Following the consultation, in the 2014 Autumn Statement the Government announced that HM Treasury had agreed funding in principle for a London Overground extension to Barking Riverside.

2.3 The extension would run on the existing Tilbury Loop line and then by a new section of railway, to be built as a raised viaduct, heading south after the railway passes underneath Renwick Road bridge to a new station in the heart of the Barking Riverside development. Two route options were identified for how an extension would continue from the Tilbury line into the development.

2.4 TfL held a second round of public consultation between 11 May 2015 and 28 June 2015. Views were again sought on the principle of an extension and also on the two route options.

2.5 Route option A would run on two separate viaducts. The eastbound line towards Barking Riverside would leave the Tilbury line after passing under Renwick Road Bridge. It would then turn right and pass over the freight yard and Choats Road, before dropping under the power lines and continuing into Barking Riverside. The westbound line back towards Barking station would cross Choats Road on another viaduct and curve left near the existing houses, joining the Tilbury line west of Renwick Road bridge. This alignment would require fewer changes to the freight yard railway infrastructure. Route option A is illustrated in figure 2 on page 9.

2.6 Route option B would run both lines in parallel along a single viaduct. The viaduct would pass over the freight terminal and Choats Road before dropping under the power lines and continuing into Barking Riverside. This alignment would tie-in to the Tilbury line slightly further west and would require more changes to the freight yard. However, by crossing Choats Road to the east on a single viaduct, it is possible to increase the distance between the existing residential areas and the operational railway. Route option B is illustrated in figure 3 on page 9.

2.7 A number of respondents to the 2014 public consultation asked whether a second station could be provided between Barking station and the Barking Riverside development.

3 A separate report on the 2014 consultation is available on our website tfl.gov.uk/gospeloak-barking.

Figure 2: Route Option A

Figure 3: Route Option B

2.8 Whilst a second station is outside the scope of the project, TfL has investigated whether provision could be made for a station in the future, subject to passenger demand and funding. TfL identified a potential location west of Renwick Road Bridge with route option B. A station in the same area cannot be provided with route option A 9

because there would not be enough space between the two viaduct structures to accommodate a platform on the tracks.

2.9 Both route options would see the London Overground switching from platform 1 to use platforms 7 & 8 at Barking Station. Platform 1 would remain available to London Overground trains to aid service recovery during periods of disruption. A new station would be constructed at the end of the extension route in the Barking Riverside development, serving both new and existing residents.

3 Background to the scheme

3.1 Barking Riverside is the largest housing development site in east London. It is part of the London Riverside Opportunity Area and has planning permission for up to 10,800 new homes, new schools and local community infrastructure. The Greater London Authority recently ran a public consultation on an Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF), which included proposals for Barking Riverside. More information can be found on the Greater London Authority's website. This includes the draft Masterplan for the development site.

3.2 As part of the planning process, a number of conditions were placed on the development build out of the site:

 No more than 1,500 residential units may be occupied before a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) to build and operate a rail or light rail extension is granted  No more than 4,000 residential units may be occupied before the railway is operational

3.2 The original plan was designed around the extension of the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) from Gallions Reach to Dagenham Dock, via Barking Riverside. DLR Limited actively consulted key stakeholders in 2007 regarding possible route options, but with an estimated capital cost of c£700m, the full extension of the DLR was considered unaffordable and the scheme was cancelled by the Mayor of London in 2009.

3.3 Upon the cancellation of the DLR Dagenham Dock proposal, TfL examined a number of alternative transport options to serve the Barking Riverside development. This work concluded that, subject to consultation and further development, an extension of the London Overground Gospel Oak to Barking service, from its current terminus at Barking to a new station in the heart of Barking Riverside, was the optimal scheme to enable the development of the area. More information on how this position was reached is available in the Transport Options Summary report, which was included in the spring 2015 consultation.

3.4 Following the decision to propose an extension of the London Overground, it was important that those people living and working in the surrounding area, or those interested in the planning of the Barking Riverside development should have the opportunity to comment on the new proposal. Two opportunities for comment have now been provided: the first during the early planning phase of the project and the second, before deciding on a route alignment. 10

4 Methodology

Scope of consultation 4.1 The spring 2015 consultation was planned to seek people’s views on the principle of an extension from Barking to Barking Riverside; understand the preferred route alignment from the two route options and identify any local issues which could inform the design and planning of the scheme.

4.2 TfL sought to include people living in and around the proposed development site, including residents in Thames ward or the Choats Road areas, those along the line of the route and people using Barking Station. TfL also consulted with key local stakeholders along the Gospel Oak to Barking line, including the neighbouring Boroughs of Newham, Waltham Forrest, Haringey, Hackney and Camden. Additionally, any stakeholder or member of the public with a view on the proposals was encouraged to participate in the consultation.

4.3 The consultation was to be open from 11 May 2015 to 21 June 2015. At a roadshow on 15 June 2015 some residents from the Choats Road area told TfL that they had not received a letter about the consultation and had not therefore been able to respond. Although some residents in this area had already responded (22 out of a final total of 43), TfL took the view that it would be appropriate to extend the consultation period and associated activities. Accordingly, an additional meeting was arranged with the local community for 23 June 2015. In addition a second letter was delivered to addresses with post codes commencing IG11 0X_ between 20 and 22 June 2015, informing people again about the consultation and about the 23 June 2015 meeting. The closing date for the consultation was extended for all until 28 June 2015. The second letter is included as Appendix D.

Outside the scope of this consultation 4.4 The following topics were outside the scope of the spring 2015 consultation:

 The limits of deviation within which the extension could be built, and the extent of the land that may need to be used or acquired  Location of certain infrastructure such as overhead electrification  Any construction sites, routes or requirements  Any future extension of the proposed scheme, including south of the River Thames  Any other complimentary transport interventions  Other conditions relating to the Barking Riverside development Masterplan and planning permission

4.5 A further extension of the London Overground south of the River Thames is not part of the scope of this project. However, the possibility of an extension in the future was recognised in the consultation material because project works will not preclude the possibility of an extension at a later date, subject to future passenger demand and funding. Some consultees, including political stakeholders, took the opportunity to express a view. These comments are included in the analysis of responses and will be used by TfL to inform the ongoing development of the local transport network. 11

Consultation objectives 4.6 Public consultation forms part of the guidance on taking schemes through the Transport and Works Act 1992 process. Consultation enables affected parties to contribute to the development of a project at an early stage, improving the project and avoiding unnecessary objections following submission of an application. This approach is also consistent with TfL’s own consultation procedures and statutory obligations in other parts of the business. The consultation sought to:

 Remind people about the scheme and understand the level of support in principle  Gather views on the route options and inform the decision-making process  Make clear the decision-making process and, the next steps  Highlight channels through which responses to the consultation could be sent, and make participation easy and inclusive  Identify any significant unknown issues with the proposals and inform consideration of possible mitigation measures

Consultation tools 4.7 A range of methods were adopted 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 TfL Consultation Tool, a web based platform for running consultations. Paper copies of the consultation and a questionnaire were available on request to anyone who did not have access to the internet.

4.8 In recognition of the fact that the majority of beneficiaries from the railway extension are the future residents of the Barking Riverside development, both consultations had a wide catchment area, including the neighboring boroughs along the length of the Gospel Oak – Barking line.

4.9 As part of a marketing campaign, a number of promotional activities were undertaken to support the consultation and let people know how they could participate:

4.10 The primary means of collecting the views of consultees was via the Consultation Tool, enabling participants to view the material and respond using an online survey. Comments were also taken at roadshows, meetings and on feedback forms. The consultation was supported by factsheets and two reports: a transport options summary and a route option assessment4. The reports explained what other opportunities had been investigated and how TfL had arrived at the two proposed alignment options for a London Overground extension.

The online survey and questionnaire 4.11 The questions were structured to provide TfL with an understanding of the level of support in principle for the London Overground extension. TfL also sought to understand any preference for a particular route option and to capture comments that could be used to inform the development of the project.

4.12 The questionnaire included the following questions:

About you 1. What is your name? 2. What is your email address? 3. What is your postcode? 4. If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group, please provide us with a name. 5. Please tell us more about you. (Where consultees local, did they use Barking station etc) 6. How did you hear about the consultation?

About the proposals 7. In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking Riverside? 8. Do you have a preferred alignment? 9. Do you have any comments to make about route option A? 10. Do you have any comments to make about route option B? 11. Do you have any other comments about the proposals? 12. Do you have any comments about the consultation? (Clarity of information, the supporting documents, roadshows etc 13. Would you like to continue to receive updates about this proposal? Y/N

4.13 Responses submitted using the online survey received an automated acknowledgement. Everyone who contacted TfL as part of the consultation, with an email or postal address, will be notified that the report is available and directed to the website.

4 This information is available on the project website: tfl.gov.uk/barking-riverside-consult 13

5 Overview of consultation responses

Who responded? 5.1. The consultation generated 600 responses, including 22 received from stakeholders or interest groups. 94% (564) of the responses were entered online and 6% (36) were received by email, post or at an exhibition. There were eight instances of duplicate responses. The duplicates were consolidated to give an individual response.

5.2 To understand the type of respondent and their relationship with the proposed scheme, consultees were asked to respond to a series of statements under the heading “Tell us more about you”. Figure 4 shows the results. All respondents could choose more than one answer if applicable.

Figure 4: Responses received for the question “Tell us more about you”.

Number of Tell us more about you % respondents I live near the Barking Riverside development or 221 37% Thames ward I work near the Barking Riverside development 62 10% I use the Gospel Oak to Barking London Overground 157 26% line regularly I use Barking station regularly 340 57% I live near the existing Tilbury line 57 10%

How many people answered each question? 5.3. Not every respondent answered every question; of the 600 who responded:

 588 responded to Question 7: In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking Riverside?  398 responded to Question 8: Do you have a preferred alignment?  199 responded to Question 9: Do you have any comments to make about route option A?  286 responded to Question 10: Do you have any comments to make about route option B?  282 responded to Question 11: Do you have any other comments about the proposals?  101 responded to Question 12: Do you have any comments about the consultation? (Clarity of information, the supporting documents, roadshows etc  569 responded to Question 13: Would you like to continue to receive updates about this proposal? Y/N

Geography of respondents 5.4 579 (97%) of the respondents provided their full or partial home postcode, with 492 of these being successfully mapped within the Greater London area. There were 109 responses from the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham where Barking Riverside is situated. There were 43 responses from respondents who had a postcode starting with IG11 0X_; these residents are the closest existing residents to the proposed route options.

How did they hear about the consultation? 5.5 To understand how news about the consultation was received, respondents were asked how they heard about the consultation. Figure 5 indicates the information channels through which respondents heard about the consultation.

Figure 5: Information channels through which respondents heard about the consultation.

London Borough of All respondents Barking and IG11 0X_ Information Channel Dagenham Number of Number of Number of % % % respondents respondents respondents Received an email from TfL 352 61% 186 65% 15 36% Received a letter from TfL 45 8% 41 14% 215 50% Saw an advert on the TfL 34 6% 4 1% 0 0% website Read about it in the press 30 5% 10 3% 2 5% Through social media 42 7% 10 3% 0 0% Word of mouth 43 7% 21 7% 2 5% Other 34 6% 15 5% 2 5%

5 Of whom, eight replied before 20 June 2015. 15

6 Analysis of consultation responses

Question 7

6.1. Question 7 asked “In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking Riverside?” To understand the level of support, respondents were given three answers from which to choose:

Yes - in principle the respondent supports the proposed extension No - the respondent does not support the proposed extension Not sure - the respondent is not fully in support, or has some concerns

6.2 Support for the scheme was high, with 532 respondents (90%) stating that in principle they support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking Riverside. 29 (5%) stated that they do not support the proposal and 27 (5%) stated that they were unsure. Figure 6 displays the level of support for the scheme.

Figure 6: Proportion of support and opposition to the proposed London Overground extension.

6.3 Figure 7 below shows the level of support for the proposed London Overground extension from all respondents, from those within the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and from those with a postcode starting with IG11 0X_. The IG11 0X_ postcode group live in the Choats Road area and are the closest existing residents to any new railway viaduct.

6.4 It is evident that the level of support within the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham is similar to the overall level support for the project. The support was lower in postcodes starting IG11 0X_ but still very positive with 79% (33) expressing support for the scheme, 12% (5) expressing opposition and 10% (4) stating that they were not sure.

Figure 7: Proportion of support and opposition to the proposed London Overground extension from all respondents, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham residents, and residents with postcodes starting with IG11 0X.

6.5 Figure 8 on page 18 shows the distribution of respondents across Greater London and their stated level of support for the London Overground extension. Figure 9 on page 19 shows the distribution of respondents across the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and their stated level of support for the London Overground extension.

Figure 8: The distribution of respondents across Greater London and their stated level of support for the London Overground extension.

Figure 9: The distribution of respondents across Barking and Dagenham and their stated level of support for the London Overground extension.

Question 8

6.6 Question 8 asked “Do you have a preferred alignment?” To understand the level of preference for the two proposed route options, respondents were given four answers from which to choose:

I prefer option A I prefer option B I have no preference Neither

6.7 Due to technical error, question 8 was omitted from the consultation when it was initially uploaded on the website on 11 May. The question was correctly uploaded on 12 May. Those who had already responded to the consultation and provided contact details were contacted again to give them an opportunity to respond to this question.

6.8 The majority of respondents preferred route option B (55%, 221), while 9% (36) stated preference for route option A. A further 28% of respondents (110) had no preference, while 8% (31) did not support either option. Figure 10 displays the level of preference for the two options.

Figure 10: Level of preference of respondents towards option A and option B.

6.9 Figure 11 shows the level of preference towards option A and option B for all respondents, all those from within the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and those specifically with a postcode starting IG11 0X_. While the level of preference for option A is broadly similar in percentage terms across the groups, there is a higher level of opposition (30%) towards either option by respondents with postcodes starting IG11 0X_.

Figure 11: Level of preference of respondents towards option A and option B

6.10 Figure 12 on page 22 shows the distribution of respondents across Greater London and their stated level of preference towards option A and option B. Figure 13 on page 23 shows the distribution of respondents across the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and their stated level of preference towards option A and option B.

Figure 12: The distribution of respondents across Greater London and their stated level of preference towards option A and option B.

Figure 13: The distribution of respondents across Barking and Dagenham their stated level of preference towards option A and option B.

Question 9

6.11 Question 9 asked “Do you have any comments to make about route A?” 199 respondents raised 59 comments.

6.12 A code framework was devised which included several overall themes and, within those themes, identified specific comments. Each response to question 9 was coded to one or more codes as appropriate. For example, the consultation received responses about congestion concerns. These comments were further divided by transport mode/area (bus, traffic, train, London Underground, parking, station capacity), and by comments related to current or future congestion.

6.13 The key issues and commonly mentioned themes for each question are discussed in this chapter. A full breakdown of all the codes for Question 9 can be found in Appendix A1 on page 36.

6.14 Figure 14 shows the top five comments and themes raised from all respondents. It was evident that the lack of flexibility to provide an additional station was a key factor and tended to cause respondents to favour route option B. There was a high level of concern in relation to the potential negative impact on existing property and for residents in the area. A number of respondents gave a general statement of support for option A while many mentioned the lower cost/cost effectiveness of route option A.

Figure 14: Responses to Question 9 -Do you have any comments to make about route A?

Top five comments for Question 9 Number of comments Negative comment: Lack of flexibility to 50 provide an additional station Statement of preference towards option B 36 Negative comment: Concern due to negative 26 impact to property/residents General statement of support for option A 21 Positive comment: Lower cost/Cost effective 18

6.15 Comments were broken down further to identify any particular issues in the Choats Road area, as residents in this location would be the closest existing residents to any new viaduct structure. Figure 15 on page 25 shows the top five comments and themes raised by respondents with postcodes beginning IG11 0X_.

Figure 15: Responses to Question 9 (Do you have any comments to make about route A?) by respondents with postcodes IG11 0X_

Top five comments for Question 9 by Number of respondents with postcodes IG11 0X_ comments Negative comment: Concern due to 11 negative impact to property/residents Negative comment: Lack of flexibility to 3 provide an additional station Statement of preference towards option B 3 Negative comment: Negative environmental impact/Failure to benefit 3 the environment Positive comment: Reduced journey time 2

Question 10

6.16 Question 10 asked “Do you have any comments to make about route option B?” 286 respondents raised 72 comments.

6.17 Similarly to Question 9, responses to question 10 were coded to one or more codes as appropriate. The code framework included several overall themes and captured specific comments within these themes.

6.18 The key issues and commonly mentioned themes for each question are discussed in this chapter. A full breakdown of all the codes for Question 10 can be found in Appendix F.

6.19 Figure 15 shows the top five comments and themes raised. The majority of respondents to Question 10 believed that route option B had the advantage over option A because it allowed passive provision for a second station. A high number of respondents stated their preference towards route option B and/or their general support for option B. Responses for option B also frequently commented upon the reduced impact on existing property and for residents in the area; and improved transport links provided by route option B.

Figure 15: Responses to Question 10 - Do you have any comments to make about route option B?

Top five comments for Question 10 Number of comments Positive comment: Possibility of an additional 151 station/Longsighted approach/Flexible Statement of preference towards option B 105 Positive comment: Less impact to property/residents than 26 option A General statement of support for option B 19 Positive comment: Improved transport links 14

6.20 Figure 17 shows the top seven comments and themes raised by respondents with postcodes beginning IG11 0X_. Seven comments are shown instead of five because the pool of responses was smaller and it was more difficult to identify a top five. A high number of residents within the IG11 0X_ area stated preference towards option B. Similar to all respondents, IG11 0X_ residents highlighted the benefit of the possibility of an additional station and the flexibility it could offer.

Figure 17: Top seven comments raised for Question 10 (do you have any comments to make about route option B?) by respondents with postcodes IG11 0X-

Top seven comments for Question 10 by respondents with Number of postcodes IG11 0X_ comments Statement of preference towards option B 12 Positive comment: Possibility of an additional station/Longsighted 8 approach/Flexible Positive comment: Less impact to property/residents than option A 4 Negative comment: Concern due to negative impact to 4 property/residents Negative comment: Negative environmental impact/Failure to 2 benefit the environment General statement of support for option B 2 General statement of opposition to option B 2

Question 11

6.21 Question 11 asked “Do you have any other comments about the proposals?” 282 respondents raised 96 comments.

6.22 Similarly to Questions 9 and 10, responses to question 11 were coded to one or more codes. The code framework included several overall themes and, within these, specific comments.

6.23 The key issues and commonly mentioned themes for each question are discussed in this section. A full breakdown of the codes for Question 11 can be found in Appendix G.

6.24 Figure 18 on page 27 shows the top ten comments and themes raised. It was evident that there is a large amount of general support for the scheme and many respondents would like the scheme to be delivered quickly. An extension of the London Overground south of the river and a DLR extension to Barking Riverside were frequently requested. A large number of positive comments stated that the scheme would improve public transport in the area and aid regeneration. Concerns were frequently raised for current and future congestion on the trains, and current congestion at Barking station. Some respondents said a second station should be delivered as part of the scheme.

Figure 18: Responses to question 11 - Do you have any other comments about the proposals?

Top ten comments for Question 11 Number of comments General support for the scheme/Scheme required in area 48 Suggestion for the extension of the London Overground south 37 of the river (e.g. Thamesmead/Abbey Wood) Speed up delivery of the scheme/Build as soon as possible 26 Positive comment: Will improve public transport in the area 24 Concern about current crowding conditions on trains 21 A second station is needed as part of the scheme 19 Suggestion for the extension of the DLR to Barking Riverside 15 Concerns raised about overcrowding at Barking station 15 (current) Construct Barking Riverside station in a way that allows future London Overground extension south of the river/DLR 14 Extension Positive comment: Aids regeneration of the local 13 area/Supports Development Concern about future crowding conditions on trains 13

6.25 Figure 19 shows the top six comments and themes raised by respondents with postcodes beginning IG11 0X_. Six comments are shown instead of five because the pool of responses was smaller and it was more difficult to identify a top five.

Figure 19: Top six comments raised for question 11 by respondents with postcodes IG11 0X-

Top six comments for Question 11 by respondents with Number of postcodes IG11 0X_ comments Speed up delivery of the scheme/Build as soon as possible 6 Negative comment: Concern about negative impact to 6 property/residents due to proximity of proposed route option General support for the scheme/Scheme required in area 4 Positive comment: Will improve public transport in the area 4 Negative comment: Negative environmental impact/Failure to 3 benefit the environment Positive comment: Benefits residents 3

Question 12

6.26 Question 12 asked “Do you have any comments about the consultation? (Clarity of information, the supporting documents, roadshows etc)”. This question was asked to help evaluate the effectiveness of the consultation and make improvements for future consultations undertaken by TfL. 101 respondents raised 34 comments.

6.27 Question 12 followed the same analysis method as questions 9, 10 and 11, with a coding framework used to group the comments. Only the most frequently mentioned themes and comments for each question are mentioned in this report. A full breakdown of the codes for Question 12 can be found in Appendix H.

6.28 Figure 20 shows the top five comments and themes raised in relation to the consultation material and process. The majority of respondents gave positive feedback, stating that the consultation material was clear and informative. Some respondents criticised the maps and communication with affected parties and it was suggested that publicity levels surrounding the consultation could have been increased.

Figure 20: Top five responses to Question 12 - Do you have any other comments about the consultation?

Top five comments for Question 12 Number of comments Clear and informative material 20 General positive comment 9 Negative comment in relation to maps 6 Poor communication with affected parties 5 Suggestions: Increased publicity 5

7 Responses from stakeholders The following comments from stakeholders have been summarised.

7.1 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham The Council welcomes the opportunity to comment on the route options.

Enabling Regeneration - The provision of the London Overground extension is essential to facilitate the full development of Barking Riverside, providing much needed additional, affordable housing for the borough and for London.

Facilitating Economic Growth – It is estimated that a rail link and associated development would generate around 6,000 jobs (3,500 temporary construction jobs and 2,500 permanent jobs in servicing the area), whilst the full build out of homes is estimated to increase local retail spend by circa £47m per year by 2031. The delivery of Barking Riverside is also expected to maximise local employment opportunities and will help improve skills, making Barking and Dagenham an aspirational place to live.

Improved Connectivity - The extension of the London Overground to Barking Riverside would provide a much needed link to Central London (via interchange at Barking) and to North London and would result in a significantly reduced journey times for people living and working in the area.

Route Options - The Council’s preferred option for the extension is route alignment B which has a number of key advantages, including:

 Positioning the line further to the east of existing housing located along Choats Road  Allowing for the provision of a second rail station. We think the station should be located further west as close to Movers Lane as possible to provide maximum benefit to Thames View residents. New stations, well as Barking Station, should be allocated within a new zone 3/4 on TfL’s London rail and tube map

Future Expansion - The Council would like to take this opportunity to reiterate its support for the further extension south of the river Thames to Abbey Wood station in Bexley and is keen to work with TfL to help develop the case for this.

The Council supports provision being retained for a future Docklands Light Railway line through Barking Riverside from Beckton to supplement the capacity provided by the London Overground extension and provide links to the Royal Docks growth area.

7.2 London Borough of Redbridge The Council fully supports this scheme as it will bring greater access to jobs and retail opportunities. The Council has no alignment preference.

7.3 London Borough of Bexley The Council continues to support in principle the proposal to extend the Gospel Oak- Barking Overground Line to serve Barking Reach.

This support is conditional on passive provision being made for a later connection under the Thames into the London Borough of Bexley – in order to improve the accessibility and connectivity of the north of the borough.

From the information available, it seems that the choice of options would have no material effect on Bexley or the viability of a further extension to south London. On that assumption, the Council has no preference on the route options A or B.

7.4 London Borough of Havering The Council has reviewed the proposals and has no objections. This extension will help to stimulate grown in this part of the London Riverside Opportunity Area.

The Council notes that whilst TfL does not believe the C2C timetable will be adversely affected by the proposals, changes may have to be made to accommodate the 4tph London Overground to Barking Riverside Service. The Council wishes to be involved in any discussions on timetable options.

London Riverside is the largest regeneration opportunity in the Thames Gateway and “Havering Riverside” could generate up to 7,000 new jobs and 4,000 new homes. The Council is of the view that an increase in capacity through improved train frequency along Essex Thameside is vital to attract jobs and residents to the area.

The Council is working very closely with Network Rail, Department for Transport and TfL on progressing a new station at Beam Park, which is part of the franchise agreement with c2c. The new station will need to be incorporated into any new operating timetable in the future.

7.5 London Borough of Newham The London Borough of Newham is supportive of the proposals for a London Overground extension to Barking Riverside. An extension would ensure further development of the Barking area, including house building and associated infrastructure, and will help meet these population demands.

7.6 Royal Borough of Greenwich The Royal Borough welcomes the proposed extension of the London Overground to Barking Riverside.

The Royal Borough believes that a package of river crossings, with integrated public transport, is needed in south and east London to support growth and development. The extension of the London Overground from Barking Riverside south of the river to Thamesmead and Abbey Wood would also create the opportunity to integrate the railway into the existing network in a way that could create an extended outer orbital route around London. It should not preclude the opportunity to further extend the DLR network to south London. The Royal Borough urges TfL to accelerate progress on work being undertaking to demonstrate the benefits of extending the line south of

the river and publish the outputs from that work at the earliest opportunity.

Route options - The Royal Borough is of the view that:

 With either option, the new terminus should be designed so as to accommodate the future extension to Thamesmead and Abbey Wood  A decision on alignment A or B should be consistent with the views of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

7.7 Valerie Shawcross AM, (Lambeth and Southwark) and London Assembly Labour Group In principal, London Assembly Labour Group supports an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking Riverside. We support option B, as we believe we need to keep the option to have an intermediate station in the future.

We are disappointed that the intermediate station will not be progressed as part of the current scheme. We are concerned that the current residents of the area will not see their own transport options expanded by the creation of an intermediate station.

Furthermore we are disappointed that the scheme will not be extended south of the river. We note your response to the consultation states that it may be desirable to further extend the scheme in the future, however it does not go on to explain why it is not desirable to do so now. We are concerned that the proposed design of the Barking Riverside station could mean that an extension south of the river is untenable.

7.8 John Biggs AM, (City and East) and London Assembly Labour Group Mr Biggs supports the scheme in principle and prefers alignment B, as it allows for passive provision for a second station.

Mr Biggs is concerned that any alignment would not preclude a cross-river extension in the future. He requires clarification as to whether such a route is safeguarded both in land use and design facilitating a tunnel, preferably with gradients suitable for freight movements.

7.9 c2c Rail c2c's key concern with Option A is that it makes no provision for a future new station. Of the two routes proposed by TfL in this consultation, Option B is the preferred route.

Option B makes passive provision for a future station, and many previous transport infrastructure schemes have demonstrated the importance of such foresight. Importantly, the location of this potential future station would be on the new extension, not the existing Tilbury line. The issues surrounding loading levels on c2c services and the need for work at existing train stations are ongoing.

7.10 DB Schenker DB Schenker own and operate rail freight facilities in the Barking area that would potentially be impacted by these proposals. We are developing a multimodal Eurohub at Barking. It will be the only rail-linked facility of its type, crucially connected to HS1 and the UK rail network.

When you also take the planned growth of rail freight services to and from London Gateway port into account, it is evident that without proper planning and enhanced rail freight infrastructure around TfL’s proposed extension, there will be capacity and performance risks for all operators.

DB Schenker supports the proposal of Network Rail for a new yard at Ripple Lane West Yard.

The Barking flyover poses challenges for the future accommodation of anticipated additional freight Thameside / cross London traffic growth in the coming 5-10 years.

For this reason, it is imperative that the simultaneous development of a fit for purpose freight regulation facility on the Ripple Lane West Yard footprint be an integral component of this scheme.

7.11 Rail Freight Group Rail Freight Group prefers option B, as it is less intrusive on the freight yard. We are concerned to ensure that, whichever option is taken, the operation of the freight yard is not adversely affected, and that the development aligns with the separate proposals to enhance the yard. We understand that discussions with Network Rail have started, and we would urge TfL to continue this in pursuit of an option and funding solution that meets all needs.

7.12 Campaign for Better Transport We prefer option B, as it provides passive provision for a station at Renwick Road. It is important to site the station in Barking Riverside at a level which would make it possible to extend the London Overground south of the Thames in the future.

7.13 Railfuture, London & South East Branch Railfuture support an extension in principle and prefer option B. An important step in developing an outer orbital rail network, providing adequate provision is made for crossing the Thames for rail connections south of the river.

7.14 Historic England Historic England/the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) have reviewed the documentation, and able to advise you as follows.

Archaeology As per our advice on 15th September 2015 we note that both route options would pass over an area of significant buried archaeological potential connected with the

prehistoric landscape. Any discoveries, may, depending on the level of preservation, be of national importance.

There is very high potential that such material could be removed by development which requires foundations at depth or piling. In order to minimise specific impacts on the archaeological resource an evaluative phase of work, which closely models the geo-archaeological and archaeological deposits within the two preferred routes and stations, will be necessary.

Built Heritage Having reviewed the Historic Environment Record, I can advise you that there are no listed buildings or conservation areas on the line of the proposed route.

7.15 Natural England Natural England is the Government agency that works to conserve and enhance biodiversity and landscapes, promote access to the natural environment, and contribute to the way natural resources are managed so that they can be enjoyed now and by future generations. The approach and methodology proposed under the Transport and Works Act 1992 are in line with the advice that would be offered by Natural England. The issues and areas covered are those that Natural England would expect to see included within the Environmental Statement, as part of the project’s application for powers. Natural England has considered the information supplied in the public consultation and confirms it has no additional comment to make at this stage.

7.17 Inland Waterways Association The Inland Waterways Association supports an extension in principle and has no preference on the alignment options.

7.18 Thames Water Thames Water supports in principle the proposal for an extension of the London Overground to Barking Riverside. Thames Water does not wish to express a preference for either of the proposed alignments as set out in the consultation. Once the exact location of the proposed Overground Extension is known, Thames Water will need to establish whether any of its water or sewerage infrastructure assets may be affected. The protection of Thames Water’s assets from a vibration perspective will also need to be considered when piling is to be used for construction.

7.19 Living Streets Living Streets has a Service Level Agreement (SLA) with the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham whereby we jointly deliver projects which increase the walking rate in the borough, make streets better for walking, and ensure that walking remains high on agendas such as transport, health and regeneration. We are submitting our response to this second Barking Riverside London Overground Extension consultation as part of our SLA.

Living Streets responded to the previous consultation in 2014, and we are grateful that our comments regarding the general ambition of the London Overground extension and our concerns regarding the location of the station have been acknowledged in TfL’s response to the points raised in the 2014 consultation. Route Options Living Streets would be much more inclined to support alignment B; since this option will have a reduced impact on Choats Road as a pedestrian and cyclist route, and would also allow for a new station to be potentially built in the future – which we recommended in the previous consultation.

Impact of Viaducts The impact of the viaducts on the pedestrian environment forms one of our prime concerns. Viaducts have the potential to make the route considerably less friendly for pedestrians if done incorrectly.

We recommend that the arch of the viaduct should be well lit and should consist of one arch. We also hope that proposed designs for the viaduct would not reduce the width of the footpath. This will enable more comfortable space sharing by pedestrians and cyclists. Pigeon roost sites should be designed out to prevent fouling.

Potential of a New Station One of the points we raised in the previous consultation was the need for a second station in the area. As such, we are pleased that alignment B is being put forward for consultation.

7.20 London Fire Brigade The proposed site has been visited and both route alignment options A and B have been assessed and neither will have any impact on our response to this area.

7.21 Barking and Dagenham Chamber of Commerce We support an extension in principle and prefer alignment option B. It would help to have a second station, as the passenger numbers will only increase in the area. We should like to see forward planning, as things take quite some time to come to fruition.

7.22 Barking – Gospel Oak Rail User Group BGORUG supports alignment option B, as it provides passive provision for a second station, which would serve residents at Thames View estate. However they express reservations on the proposals:

1. Without a DLR extension, they advocate an extension of the Hammersmith and City London Underground line. Reasons include a perceived lower impact on passengers interchanging at Barking station 2. The impact an extension would have to the rest of the London Overground network, with a perceived constraint at Gospel Oak 3. They suggest an alternative location for a potential second London Overground station between the west end of Wivenhoe Road and Abridge Way, allowing improved access from Thames View Estate

8 Conclusion

8.1 TfL believes that to support the level of housing development required at Barking Riverside, an extension of the London Overground is clearly required.

8.2 90% of respondents to the consultation agree in principle to an extension of the London Overground. 55% of people who expressed a preference said they preferred route option B.

8.3 TfL will develop route option B in readiness for a TWAO application for powers to construct and operate a railway extension.

8.4 The consultation drew further attention to a number of issues which need to be addressed prior to the application. These were also raised in the 2014 consultation and TfL continues to seek a resolution, though design progression and through continuous engagement with the affected parties. Those issues are:

 Barking station’s ability to accommodate the expected additional passengers using an Overground train from Barking Riverside  Mitigation of any impact on rail and freight services  Mitigation of the impact on local residents  Construction impacts

9 Next steps 9.1 TfL will also continue to engage with local residents, businesses and landowners and involve them in the progress of the proposals, seeking ways to mitigate any impact where practicable. TfL will continue to liaise with rail and freight operators and explore methods of accommodating a London Overground extension with existing services.

9.2 TfL will hold a third round of public consultation later in 2015, when further views will be sought on the preferred route option. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, TfL intends to apply for powers to build and operate a railway extension through a TWAO in spring 2016. If approved by the Secretary of State for Transport, construction would begin in 2017 with trains running by the end of 2020.

Appendix A1 – Comments raised for Question 9

Do you have any comments to make about route option A?

Favoured option Prefer Option B 36 Prefer this option (Option A) 14 No preference 4 Do not approve of either option but prefer this one (Option A) 1 Support Support this option 21 Support the scheme as a whole/both options 4 Station needed in Barking Riverside as soon as possible 2 Oppose Oppose this option (Option A) 12 Oppose the scheme as a whole 1 Positive comments Lower cost/Cost effective 18 Least impact on existing line/Less disruptive 5 Provides benefits 4 Improved transport links 3 Reduced journey time 3 Provides benefits for local residents 2 Provides benefits for local workforce 1 Simple 1 Negative comments/concerns Lack of flexibility to provide an additional station 50 Impact to property/residents 26 Benefits new/future residents only rather than existing residents 7 Requires construction of two separate viaducts 7 Short-sighted approach failing to deliver requirements 6 Negative environmental impact/Fails to benefit the environment 4 Impact on C2C line 4 Negative economic impact/Fails to benefit the economy 2 Fails to serve one side of Barking Riverside 2 Location of new station 2 Cost 1 Fails to serve the south of the river 1

Barking station Concerns about overcrowding at Barking station (future) 3 Negative conditions (current) 1 Congestion concern Train (current) 3 Train (future) 3 Bus (current) 2 Construction 1 LO service information 1 Negative impact on current journeys 1 Suggestions Further extension of London Overground to Thamesmead 4 Improvements to Barking station 4 Build as soon as possible 3 Extend carriage length 2 Provision in station 2 Build option A and option B 1 Different location for second station suggested 1 DLR extension to Barking riverside 1 Improve London Overground platforms 1 Increase London Overground frequency 1 North-South Train link serving Erith 1 River boat 1 Track layout 1 Other No significant comment 7

Appendix A2 – Comments raised for Question 10

Do you have any comments to make about route option B? Favoured option Prefer this option (Option B) 105 No preference 6 Support Support this option 19 Support the scheme as a whole/both options 2 Station needed in Barking Riverside as soon as possible 1 Condition of support Intermediate station included 13 Passive provision for intermediate station provided 5 No speed restriction implemented 1 Oppose Oppose this option 4 Oppose the scheme as a whole 1 Positive comment Possibility of an additional station/Longsighted approach/Flexible/Allows for 151 capacity growth Less impact to property/residents 26 Improved transport links 14 Provides benefit for local residents 11 Positive economic impact/Potential to benefit the economy 10 Less environmental impact 4 Single viaduct 4 Supports future development of the area 4 Benefits existing residents 3 Reduced journey times 3 Cost effective 2 Provides benefits 1 Less impact (general) 1 No impact on C2C services/freight trains 1 Reduced negative impact on pedestrians/cyclists 1 Design 1 Impact on C2C/Freight line 7 Impact to property/residents 5 Cost (higher) 3 Passive second station provision not needed 3 Design 2 Environmental impact 2 Fails to serve one side of Barking Riverside 2

Barking Station Concerns about overcrowding at Barking station (future) 1 Improvements to overcrowding at Barking station (future) 1 Negative conditions (current) 1 Congestion concern Train (future) 5 Traffic (current) 4 Bus (current) 2 Train (current) 2 Parking (future) 1 Congestion improvement Traffic (future) 3 Bus (future) 1 London Overground line Negative conditions (current) 1 Clarification/Information requested Cost-benefit analysis 4 Road building and its impact on the environment 2 Second station location 2 Suggestions Further extension of London Overground to Thamesmead 7 Build new station straight away/soon after extension opens 5 Build as soon as possible 4 DLR extension to Barking Riverside 4 3rd station required 2 C2C services should also use the additional stop 2 Improve London Overground platforms 2 Improvements to Barking station 2 Alignment 6 from the options report should be pursued 1 Alternative scheme design 1 Extend carriage length 1 North-South Train link serving Erith 1 Pedestrian improvements 1 River boat 1 Second station location 1 Single track only 1 Suggested route for C2C service 1 Other No significant comment 3

Appendix A3 – Comments raised for Question 11

Do you have any other comments about the proposals? Favoured option Prefer Option B 11 No preference 5 Positive comments Support scheme/Scheme required in area 48 Improved public transport in the local area 24 Aids regeneration of the local area/Supports Development 13 Benefits businesses/economy 11 Benefits residents 10 Reduced journey times 6 Lengthened trains 4 General 3 Electrification of line needed 2 Benefits environment 1 Negative comments/concerns Impact to property/residents 6 Location of new station 4 Better transport links in the area needed before proposed timing 3 Environmental impact 3 Impact on C2C/Freight line 3 Short-sighted approach 3 Benefits new/future residents only rather than existing residents 2 Connection to Barking already provided by bus 2 Cost of scheme 2 Housing development is on a floodplain 2 No improvement South of the river (.e.g. Thamesmead) 2 Oppose scheme 2 Cost of travel in London 1 Barking and Dagenham does not have the infrastructure to support scheme 1 Worsen service on existing London Overground line 1 Housing development 1 Neutral comments No impact/Neutral 2 Second station Second station is essential 19 Second station should not be provided 1

Barking Station Concerns about overcrowding at Barking station (current) 15 Concerns about overcrowding at Barking station (future) 12 Improvements to overcrowding at Barking station (future) 2 Suggestion for use of platforms at Barking station 2 Congestion concern Train (current) 21 Train (future) 13 Traffic (current) 5 Bus (current) 4 Traffic (future) 3 Underground (current) 2 Mile End station (current) 1 Unspecified (future) 1 Congestion improvement Traffic (future) 1 Clarification/Information requested Cost-benefit analysis 3 Timescales of completion 2 Zone of the new station 2 Grade separation of Option B junction 2 Exact route 1 Road layout 1 Noise levels for residents 1 Extensions suggested Extension of Overground south of the river (.e.g. Thamesmead/Abbey Wood) 37 Extension of DLR to Barking Riverside 15 Extension of Hammersmith and City Line to Barking Riverside 5 Extension of London Underground to Barking Riverside 5 Extension of Overground to Grays/Overground to replace C2C to Grays 3 Connect Barking Riverside station with existing Overground and national rail 2 services Extension of Overground beyond Gospel Oak (.e.g. Clapham Junction) 2 Extension of Overground eastward from Barking riverside (.e.g. 2 Upminster/Tilbury line) Extension of Overground to Goodmayes Park 2 Request for generic extensions to Barking Riverside 2 Extension of Overground westwards (.e.g. Beckton/Galleons reach) 1 Extension of Jubilee line to Thamesmead 1 Extension of Overground to North East (.e.g. Higham) 1 Extension of Overground to Stratford (connecting with Barking Riverside) 1

Suggestions Speed up delivery of the scheme/Build as soon as possible 26 Construct Barking Riverside station in a way that allows a future London 14 Overground extension South of the river/DLR Extension Increase train frequency further 8 Extend the length of the trains 7 Additional bus services serving the development 4 Improvements to Barking station 4 Extend (expand) bus network 3 Improve East London's public transport 3 Design of Barking Riverside station 2 Increase frequency of C2C services 2 Increase platform length 2 Second station location 2 Access improvements (road and pedestrian) 1 Cross river footbridge 1 Cycle provision 1 Developers to pay funding contribution 1 Divert funds to Hillingdon/Bromley/Bexley 1 Double track 1 Geo-archaeological and Archaeological investigations may be necessary 1 Improve connections to Barking station 1 Improve Overground platforms 1 Install a station at Renwick road before Barking Riverside station 1 Retail provision in the new station 1 Riverboat extension 1 Safeguard additional land so that a new section of track can be created so 1 that Overground trains do not need to use the Tilbury line Safeguard land for south of the river extension 1 Viaduct environment design 1 Other Comment not related to this scheme directly 4 Meaning of statement unclear 2 No significant comment 2

Appendix A4 – Comments raised for Question 12 Do you have any comments about the consultation? (Clarity of information, the supporting documents, roadshows etc). Positive comments Clear and informative 20 General 9 Maps 3 Public information days 3 Communication 2 Email content 2 Online content 2 Supporting documents 2 Responsive to public views 1 Negative comments/concerns Maps 6 Poor communication with affected parties 5 Decision made before consultation 4 Confusing 2 Public information days 2 Insufficient information provided 2 Bias 1 Email link 1 Letter content unclear 1 Website 1 Clarification/Information requested DLR option information 2 Progress updates 2 Supporting information 2 Cost 1 Images 1 Second station information 1 Suggestions More publicity required 5 Information should be sent to local addresses 3 Quick consultation 2 Alternative communication methods 1 Continued email updates 1 More engagement required 1 More flexible times and dates 1 Other Comment not related to the consultation material 23 No significant comment 8

Appendix B – Copy of the consultation letter

Appendix C – Letter distribution area

Appendix D – 19 June letter to Choats Road (IG11 0X_)

Appendix E – Letter to Stakeholders

Appendix F – Email to Stakeholders

Have your say on a London Overground extension to Barking Riverside I am writing because we would like to know what you think about Transport for London’s proposals to extend the Gospel Oak to Barking rail line to the Barking Riverside development. An extension would help enable the delivery of up to 10,800 new homes, many of which would be affordable, as well as a new school and healthcare facilities.

Last autumn we introduced the scheme and asked people for their initial views. The response was overwhelming positive, with 90% of respondents replying that they supported an extension in principle. A report on the results of the 2014 consultation is available at tfl.gov.uk/barking-riverside- consult.

Funding for an extension has been agreed in principle, and we now return to seek your views on different route options and to discuss further some of the issues which were raised last autumn. The consultation finishes on 21 June 2015.

How can I find out more?

Please contact the project if you feel a meeting to discuss the proposals would be useful. More information is available on our website at tfl.gov.uk/barking-riverside-consult. You can also write to ‘FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS’ or email [email protected].

We are also holding two public information days at which TfL staff involved in the project will be available to answer your questions:

Barking Library Learning Centre, 2 Town Square, Barking, IG11 7NB Saturday 13th June, 1300-1700

The Rivergate Centre Barking Riverside, Minter Rd, Barking, IG11 0FJ Monday 15th June, 1500-1900

Yours sincerely

Richard de Cani Managing Director, Planning

Appendix G – List of stakeholders consulted

Action for Children Action on Hearing Loss (RNID) Age UK London Association for Consultancy and Engineering (ACE) AXA REIM Barking & Dagenham Safer Transport Team Barking and Dagenham Chamber of Commerce Barking and Dagenham NHS Care Commissioning Group Barking Riverside Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust Better Bankside BGORUG British Deaf Association (BDA) British Gas British Sky Broadcasting Ltd British Youth Council BT Group Plc BT Openreach c2c Cable & Wireless Campaign for Better Transport Campaign for Clean Air in London Canal & River Trust Canary Wharf Group Central London Connexions Centre for Cities Centre for London Changemakers City Year London Civil Engineering Contractors Association (CECA) Community Transport Association (CTA) Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Corona Energy

Council for Disabled Children Crossrail Ltd CTC – Cyclists’ Touring Club Cubic Transportation Systems Ltd DABD (UK) DB Schenker Department for Communities and Local Government Department for Transport Direct Rail Services Disabled Persons Transport Committee Disablement Association of Barking & Dagenham Dong Energy UK Dunbar Management Investments Ltd E on UK East London Business Alliance EDF Energy Edmonton CLP EE EEF (Engineering Employers' Federation) End Violence Against Women English Heritage Environment Agency Envision Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) Fitzrovia Partnership Foyer Federation Freight Transport Association (FTA) Freightliner Friends Life Friends of the Earth Gazprom Energy GB Railfreight GDF Suez Energy Ltd Greater London Authority (GLA) Greater London Forum for Older People (GLF) HS2 Ltd 50

Inclusion London Independent Disability Advisory Group (IDAG) Inland Waterways Association Institute of Advanced Motorists Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) John G Russell (Transport) Ltd Jon Cruddas MP Leonard Cheshire Disability LFEPA (London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority) Living Streets London Borough of Barking & Dagenham London Borough of Camden London Borough of Hackney London Borough of Haringey London Borough of Havering London Borough of Newham London Borough of Redbridge London Borough of Waltham Forest London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI) London Civic Forum London Councils London First London Riverside BID London TravelWatch London Visual Impairment Forum (LVIF) London Voluntary Service Council London Wildlife Trust London Youth LOROL Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership Margaret Hodge MP Metropolitan Police MiNet/ROTA Multiple Sclerosis Society Muscular Dystrophy Campaign National Children's Bureau (NCB) 51

National Council for Voluntary Youth Services (NCVYS) National Grid Natural England NCVO Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd Newham Safer Transport Team North East Chamber of Commerce (NECC) North London Strategic Alliance Npower Office of Rail Regulation Partnership for Young London Passenger Focus People First Plusnet Princes Trust RAC Foundation for Motoring RADAR Rail Delivery Group (RDG) Rail Freight Group Rethink Road Haulage Association (RHA) Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Royal London Society for the Blind (RLSB) SCOPE Scottish & Southern Energy (SSE) Scottish Power Energy Retail Ltd Sustrans Telefonica UK Thames Water The Association of Guide Dogs for the Blind The London Legacy Development Corporation TM Treasury Total Gas & Power UK Broadband UK Citizens Virgin Media 52

Appendix H – Copy of the consultation leaflet

N.B. On 16 June 2015, the decision was taken to extend the consultation to 28 June 2015

Appendix I – Public events

Scratton Farm tenants and Tuesday, 19 May About 20 attendees residents association meeting 1930-2000 Julia Gardens Barking

Sutton Estate tenants and Wednesday, 20 May About 20 attendees residents association meeting 1830 Barking Town Hall Town Square Barking IG11 7LU

Thames ward tenants and Tuesday, 2 June About 20 attendees residents association meeting 1930 Riverside House 30A Roxwell Road Barking IG11 0PR

Roadshow Saturday 13 June About 20 attendees Barking Library Learning Centre 1300 – 1700 2 Town Square Barking IG11 7NB

Roadshow Monday, 15 June 23 attendees The Rivergate Centre 1500 – 1900 Barking Riverside Minter Road Barking IG11 0FJ

Tenants Federation Wednesday, 17 June About 25 attendees (Combined chairs from TRA's) 1830 meeting Barking and Dagenham Civic Centre Rainham Road North Dagenham RM10 7BN

Choats Road residents meeting Tuesday, 23 June About 8 attendees c/o Scratton Farm 1900 -2030 Julia Gardens Barking

Appendix J – Message to Oyster users

Dear Test email recipient,

I am writing to ask for your views on our plans for the Barking Riverside extension of London Overground.

These plans have further developed since the consultation in September last year. We now have funding agreed in principle and would like your views on the proposed route options.

For full details and to have your say, please visit tfl.gov.uk/barking-riverside-consult

This consultation will run until Sunday 21 June.

Yours sincerely,

Richard de Cani Managing Director Planning

These are our consultation customer service updates. To unsubscribe, please click here

Appendix K – Press advert The advert appeared in the Barking and Dagenham Post (13 and 27 May and 13 June 2015; and the Barking and Dagenham Yellow Advertiser on 14, 18 and 28 May and 18 June 2015.

Appendix L – Press release

Appendix M - Response to questions

In spring 2015 Transport for London (TfL) conducted a public consultation on the proposal to extend the London Overground Barking to Gospel Oak line to the Barking Riverside development site. The consultation ran from 11 May 2015 to 28 June 2015. The consultation into the Barking Riverside Extension (BRE) generated 600 responses from the public and stakeholder groups. A full breakdown of the consultation responses is provided in the consultation report which is published alongside this document. This document sets out TfL’s response to the main questions raised during the consultation. This section reflects TfL’s position based on information available as of August 2015. The proposed extension is still under development. It is possible circumstances influencing these proposals may change through the course of developing the designs.

Question Response Will the London Overground be TfL propose to extend the Overground to Barking Riverside, where the railway would extended further south across the terminate at a new station. In the longer-term it might be desirable to further extend the Thames River? Overground south of the Thames to connect with Thamesmead and Abbey Wood. TfL propose to provide passive provision, whereby the track alignment to Barking Riverside would not prohibit the possibility of a future extension. This does not include designing a further extension, or undertaking any physical works towards the construction of a river crossing as part of the currently proposed Barking Riverside Extension project. With option B, could grade Option B is grade separated. separation be employed at the The passive provision for an additional station is for London Overground services only. junction with the Tilbury line to Separate to the proposed Overground extension, an additional station at Beam Park allow for increased capacity in that will be served by c2c services is proposed to open in 2020 future?

July 2015 Page 64 of 70

Question Response Are there any improvements to Overground services will transfer from platform 1 and will share use of platforms 7 and Barking station planned as part of 8 along with c2c services. This will enable services to operate on the Tilbury line BRE? towards Barking Riverside. TfL is currently applying its transport demand models as well as a detailed station model, to predict demand for interchange at the station and is working closely with Network Rail and c2c to identify the impacts of the scheme. While there are no improvements currently planned at Barking Station as part of the Barking Riverside Extension project, c2c is developing a set of unrelated proposed enhancements as part of their franchise agreement. Would it not be better to provide The principle of the extension is to unlock the development potential of the Barking passive provision for a future Riverside site. To inform the design of the railway, TfL undertook a detailed extension south of the River assessment of the local constraints and a review of existing technical information. This Thames with the current station concluded that a route alignment diverging from the Tilbury line and utilising a viaduct design? between Renwick Road and Barking Riverside represents the optimal solution in providing a new rail connection to Barking Riverside, to unlock the creation of 10,800 homes. Passive provision for a future extension to the south via Barking Riverside could only be achieved through the provision of an underground station to serve the site. However, this would significantly increase the cost of the project and would not deliver any additional new homes. TfL recognises that a possible future extension to the south is one of the longer term proposals included in the Mayor’s 2050 Infrastructure Plan, to expand the rail network to support housing growth and improve orbital rail capacity in Outer London. Therefore TfL will continue to progress the BRE whilst ensuring the plans would not preclude the connection of the BRE to a southern extension, should these proposals come forward in the future.

Page 65 of 70

Question Response Passive provision for longer The platforms at the new station would be designed to accommodate the new four car platforms should be included in electric trains due to be introduced on the route from 2017 / 2018 and include passive the new station design, as it is provision for 5 car trains. vital to the future development of services. Viaducts need to be constructed to The ability to move under a viaduct to reduce severance is something TfL will consider make the environment friendly for as part of the process for selecting a viaduct structure and its detailed design. TfL are pedestrians, well lit with enough working with BRL to ensure crossing points for pedestrians and cyclists in the room for pedestrians and cyclists, Masterplan are fit for purpose. At this stage, we are looking at possible locations for preferably under one arch. crossing points. At a later stage, we will ensure any designs meet the current highways standards and is acceptable to the local council. Why was option 6 from the Route Option 6 was based on the alignment previously proposed for the DLR extension to Option Assessment not developed Dagenham Dock, with a connection to the Tilbury line to enable services to operate further and included in the 2015 between Barking and Barking Riverside. This route would need to rise to cross the consultation as a viable option? freight terminal, an associated warehouse building and the westbound Tilbury lines on a viaduct, before being lowered to pass under the National Grid Power lines, and then rising again to cross Choats Road. A feasibility assessment of the alignment demonstrated that such a vertical alignment in this location would not be achievable, as the design would not comply with network rail engineering design and safety standards. I can't see why the route heads so The station is located in the proposed district centre for Barking Riverside, and is far south relative to the housing adjacent to River Road, a key bus spine for the development. This allows 85% of new development. Reducing the length units to fall within a 12min walk of the station and for the station to be accessible to of the line would reduce journey 100% of Barking Riverside either by foot or public transport (bus). The alignment is times fractionally and open more largely on sloping land at the edge of the development, and adjacent to retained open land for development. space, so the impact on developable land is minimal.

Page 66 of 70

Question Response The new station does not really The proposed extension would serve new and existing residents in the area, by serve existing residents. The first improving local connectivity between the Barking Riverside development, including station should be at Renwick existing residential areas, Barking town centre and central London. Road, with a second one on River A station at Renwick Road is not proposed to be delivered as part of the project, as it is Road? not required to enable the development of Barking Riverside. However, route option B would provide passive provision for the future delivery of station in the vicinity of Renwick Road. Construction of a second station would be subject to future passenger demand, funding and separate consent. Barking Riverside has planning permission for up to 10,800 new homes. However, without consent for an Overground extension in place, no more than 1,500 homes can be built and no more than 4,000 homes permitted until the railway is operational. It is proposed that the Overground extension would serve a terminus station in the vicinity of River Road, which is required to enable the development of Barking Riverside. Why doesn't TfL extend the TfL has undertaken a thorough appraisal of alternative transport options which might London Underground instead? be used to unlock the Barking Riverside development. These are included in our Transport Options summary report provided as part of the consultation. An extension of the London Underground was considered, but rejected for the following reasons:

Operational issues Eastbound, there would be a conflict between the District line and the Tilbury line at ground level. This cannot be easily solved by building a flyover and running the eastbound service on that, as there are significant overhead structures to the west of Barking station, and not enough room to the east to build one. Westbound, the path from the Tilbury line to the District Line would have to be created to the west of the station, as the current fly-under for the District line on the approach to Platform 6 at

Page 67 of 70

Question Response Barking prevents a direct connection. Signalling – Command and Control Extensive modifications would need to be made to both railways’ signalling systems, which would be extremely complex and expensive to develop. The conflicting moves between London Underground Ltd (LUL) and c2c services would also require trains to run at reduced speed on safety grounds, dramatically reducing the number of trains which could operate over the affected routes to the detriment of both LUL and c2c services. Additionally LUL and c2c use different types of train protection system, to guard against collisions. Railway Electrification LUL and Network Rail use different systems of electrification. It is the policy of the Office of Rail Regulation not to accommodate the system used by LUL trains unless absolutely necessary. The main problem is the creation of stray currents from and to receptors outside of the railway boundary. There would also be an increased risk to both workers and passengers when compared to a conventional Overhead Line System. By law, if a safer alternative exists, then that has to be chosen. Will TfL increase the capacity of In 2013 TfL secured funding with the Department for Transport to electrify the railway. the London Overground services This work will allow the current two carriage diesel trains to be replaced with four between Gospel Oak and Barking carriage electric trains from 2017 / 2018. The new trains will relieve congestion and to address problems with provide more capacity on the Overground services between Gospel Oak and Barking. crowding? In addition to the proposed extension, TfL is investigating the feasibility of increasing peak frequencies on the Gospel Oak – Barking line. However, as the railway between Gospel Oak and Barking is part of the national rail network that links the port at Tilbury with the Midland mainline, London Overground services must share this link with rail freight operators. This limits TfL’s ability to increase service frequencies.

Page 68 of 70

Question Response Why doesn't TfL extend the The key purpose of the proposed extension is to enable the development of the London Overground further east Barking Riverside area to its maximum potential. An extension of the London (eg Dagenham Dock, Rainham) Overground further east was therefore not considered. An extension of the DLR eastwards to Dagenham Dock through Barking Riverside had previously been considered, but with no funding support this option is not actively being progressed. Together Barking Riverside, Dagenham Dock and Rainham all form part of the wider London Riverside Opportunity Area. The overall transport strategy for the London Riverside Opportunity Area is included in the Draft London Riverside Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) 2015. In addition to the BRE, this includes a new station at Beam Park on the Tilbury line to be served by c2c services. The BRE is an essential part of the transport strategy of the London Riverside Opportunity Area. The OAPF was consulted on earlier this year, between 9 February 2015 and 7 April 2015. Comments received on the draft OAPF are currently being considered with a report setting out the results of consultation due to be published in Autumn 2015 alongside the finalised OAPF. What zone will the Barking No firm decision has been taken as to which fare zone Barking Riverside will be Riverside station be in? How much located within. At this stage of planning the proposed station at Barking Riverside is will the fares be? assumed to be located in fare zone 4, based on geography and existing fare zone boundaries. TfL will continue to develop the proposed BRE and further details will be made available in due course. When will TfL purchase the TfL announced on 19 June 2015 that the contract for a new fleet of 45 trains had been electric trains for the Gospel Oak – awarded to Bombardier Transportation. The existing Gospel Oak – Barking route will Barking route? be operated by 8 of these new trains from 2017 / 2018.

Page 69 of 70

Question Response Is there an impact on c2c services Under the 2015 timetable, a clock face service with regular intervals cannot be if the Overground shares the same accommodated during a two hour period of the morning peak. We are currently working tracks? with Network Rail and c2c to develop a timetable that works for all parties. Would four car electric trains per TfL is currently applying its strategic transport models to forecast demand for the new hour be insufficient to meet Barking Riverside services as well as the impact on the rest of the network and local demand once the housing stations. It should be noted however that the proposed extension forms only one part of development is fully occupied? a wider transport strategy, including increased East London Transit services, that introduces significant new public transport capacity into the development area. This strategy is set out as part of the Draft London Riverside Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) 2015. Why not have trains on the Gospel The Gospel Oak – Barking route is being electrified by Network Rail and is due to be Oak – Barking line that are the completed in 2017. TfL has ordered a fleet of new four carriage electric trains which will same type as the existing London operate on the route from 2017 / 2018, replacing the existing two carriage diesel trains Overground fleet and run them and providing improved journey times and more capacity. beyond Gospel Oak? The Clapham TfL is investigating the feasibility of increasing peak frequencies on parts of the London Junction route desperately suffers Overground network, including the West London Line between Clapham Junction and from overcrowding and will only Willesden Junction. However, Overground services must share this link with rail freight get worse as and when the Old operators. This limits TfL’s ability to increase service frequencies. By the end of 2015, Oak Common development gets all Overground trains on the West London Line will have been lengthened from 4 built. carriage to 5, increasing capacity by 20%. TfL currently has no plans to extend the Gospel Oak – Barking route at the west end.

Page 70 of 70