To View the Kennington Green Consultation

Northern Line Extension Proposals for the head house and landscaping at Kennington Green

Pre-application consultation statement July 2017

Proposals for the head house and landscaping at Kennington Green

Pre-application consultation statement July 2017

Contents

1 Summary 4 2 Introduction 5 3 Background to the scheme 5 4 Methodology 7 5 Overview of consultation responses 9 6 Analysis of consultation responses 11 7 Responses from stakeholders 23 8 Response to issues raised 24 Appendix A – Consultation letter and distribution area 33 Appendix B – Email to stakeholders 35 Appendix C – List of stakeholders contacted 36 Appendix D – Public Exhibition display boards 38 Appendix E – Questionnaire 51 Appendix F – Diversity monitoring of respondents 60 Appendix G - Updated Computer Generated Images (CGIs) 63

1 Summary

1.1 In spring 2017, Transport for London (TfL) ran a four week non-statutory consultation about the detailed designs for the head house and landscaping scheme at Kennington Green. This is part of the Northern Line Extension (NLE), which will extend the Charing Cross branch of the Northern line from Kennington to Battersea via Nine Elms. The consultation ran from 23 March to 20 April 2017.

1.2 Information about the proposals was made available online along with a questionnaire which included both closed and open questions. 1.3 Members of the public and stakeholders were invited to give their views by filling in the questionnaire at a public exhibition, replying online or by post, using a freepost address. The plans could also be viewed and commented upon online, using a website link included in letters and emails. 1.4 We received 113 responses to the engagement. 112 were members of the public and one was a stakeholder, the Woodland Trust. In addition, The Georgian Group were consulted as a statutory stakeholder to ensure all proposals were suitable for the Kennington area.

1.5 A range of responses were received. There were clear preferences for options for the external materials of the head house, as well as the perimeter kerb and tree options for the landscaping. A more varied response was given to the other options. For some of the questions a significant number of respondents stated they did not like any of the options.

2 Introduction 2.1 In spring 2017, we conducted a non-statutory consultation asking for the public and stakeholders’ views regarding the updated designs for the shaft and head house at Kennington Green. The programme ran from 23 March to 20 April.

2.2 We invited respondents to give their views on the proposed: • Patterning of the brick fin for the head house facade • Brick type for the head house facade • Patterning of the bricks on the west facade of the head house • Landscaping • Kerb along Kennington Green • Trees on the Green

2.3 Respondents were also able to say if they did not like any of the proposed options. A free text box was also provided for comments regarding the proposals.

2.4 Information about the proposals was available online and consultees were invited to respond using an online survey or by post, as well as filling in a form at the exhibition.

2.5 We consulted with The Georgian Group and liaised with Lambeth Council during this process.

3 Background to the scheme 3.1 Construction work is currently ongoing for the extension of the Northern line (Charing Cross branch) from Kennington to Battersea with new stations at Nine Elms and Battersea. 3.2 As part of the Northern Line Extension’s Transport & Works Act Order (TWAO), we have planning consent to build a shaft and head house at Kennington Green, which will provide ventilation and emergency access to the Tube once operational. This also includes reinstatement of the landscaping of the Green once the construction works are complete and the Green is no longer required as a construction site. 3.3 An outline reference design for the head house was submitted as part of the TWAO application. The current design developed differs in external appearance and, to a limited extent, scale from the reference design. The design is within TWAO Limits of Deviation; minor changes such as these are common as designs develop, and can be formalised through the discharging of a planning condition. 3.4 A detailed engineering study was undertaken to establish whether the design could be altered so as to more closely match the reference design. This study concluded that the fundamental size and shape (massing) of the head house could not change without compromising its function in some way (e.g. increasing noise levels beyond acceptable limits, restricting fire evacuation paths). 3.5 We attempted to discharge the planning condition last year by submitting plans for the head house to LB Lambeth. The application was refused by the planning committee in November 2016, despite a recommendation for approval from London Borough of Lambeth planning officers in their Committee report. The decision notice highlighted 5

brick colour and detail around the ventilation louvers as reasons for the rejection which formed the basis of the non-statutory consultation in Spring 2017. The size was accepted by the planning committee.

Previous consultations

• Consultations in summer 2010 and 2011 asked for feedback on four proposed routes for the NLE and on the preferred route including the locations for permanent shafts. Leaflets were sent to over 40,000 households and businesses along the route with an invitation to complete paper or online questionnaires. In addition, public exhibitions and meetings were held for local residents, businesses and community groups • In autumn 2011, 2,500 households and businesses were asked for their preferences on proposed locations for temporary shafts in the Kennington area. Meetings were held with residents and community groups close to the potential sites • In 2012, TfL conducted a non-statutory eight week public engagement on the proposal to extend the Charing Cross branch of the Northern line from Kennington to Battersea via Nine Elms. The engagement ran from 7 November to 30 December. • In September 2015, TfL held a meeting with residents to discuss options for landscaping at Kennington Green • From July to November 2016, the London Borough of Lambeth ran a statutory consultation on TfL’s submission to discharge the planning condition on the detailed head house designs

4 Methodology

Scope of consultation 4.1 The purpose of the consultation was to seek views on detailed designs for the head house and landscaping of Kennington Green, using the points made in the London Borough of Lambeth planning decision notice as the basis. We ran this consultation to gain feedback from residents before submitting a new application to discharge the planning condition about the head house to the London Borough of Lambeth.

4.2 We gave particular consideration to residents and businesses around Kennington Green. We also consulted with key local stakeholders including Oval And Kennington Residents Association (OAKRA) and The Georgian Group. However this did not preclude any other stakeholder or member of the public with a view on the proposals from participating in the consultation.

Outside the scope of this consultation 4.3 The following issues were outside the scope of this consultation:

• Whether to build a head house or not at Kennington Green • The location where the head house will be built • Size of the head house

Consultation objectives 4.5 The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/pl-statement-of-community- involvement-sep-2015_0.pdf ) encourages all applicants to consult local communities before they submit a planning application, and states the benefits associated with early engagement.

4.6 Pre-application engagement provides an opportunity for neighbours, local communities and stakeholders to discuss any proposals with us so any issues can be reviewed before our proposals are finalised.

4.7 We discussed and agreed our proposals for the pre-application consultation and engagement with officers from the London Borough of Lambeth. This included proposals for engagement with groups before commencing the pre-application consultation.

Consultation tools 4.8 We used a range of methods to ensure that members of the public and stakeholders were aware of the consultation and how to respond. The consultation was hosted on our online Consultation Portal. Paper copies of the consultation and a questionnaire were also available by request. (Appendix E).

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

• 4,875 letters sent out to local residents and businesses (Appendix A) • Letters were sent to owners of properties who are immediate neighbours of the proposed work site. We also walked around Kennington Green and Montford Place and spoke to residents about the consultation (Appendix C) • Letters and emails were sent to local, London wide and national statutory/ non- statutory stakeholder groups and individuals (Appendix B) • Public exhibition over three days, where people could speak to the project team • Meeting with residents, where we took them through the Building Information Model (BIM) which demonstrates engineering requirements

4.11 A public exhibition was held at Henry Fawcett Primary School, Bowling Green Street, London, SE11 5BZ on: • Thursday 23 March 2017, 17:00-20:00 • Friday 24 March 2017, 17:00-20:00 • Saturday 25 March 2017, 10:00-13:00

4.12 The public exhibition included the opportunity to meet with the scheme architects as well as the project team. 4.13 In total 64 people came along to the exhibition. The boards displayed at the exhibition and available on our website are shown in Appendix D.

5 Overview of consultation responses

Who responded?

5.1. The consultation received 112 responses from members of the public. 100 responses were received online, with 10 by paper copy and two by email. There were no instances of duplicate responses. Section six summarises the responses from members of the public. There was a further response from a stakeholder interest group, identified from the question “in what capacity are you responding to this consultation”. This stakeholder response, from the Woodland Trust, is summarised in section seven. The Georgian Group were also consulted in advance of the public exhibitions and their feedback is also summarised in section seven.

Profile of respondents 5.2 We asked about the profile of the respondents, and people were given seven options to choose from (they could choose more than one option):

Number of Profile of respondent respondents Local resident 90 Employed locally 9 Visitor to the area 6 Not local but interested in the scheme 6 Business owner 5 Commuter 4 Other 3

5.3 109 respondents answered this question, three did not respond. Respondents were most likely to describe themselves as local residents, or employed locally.

How did respondents hear about the consultation?

5.4 We asked how people had heard about the consultation. The table below shows that nearly half of respondents stated they heard about it through an email from TfL.

Information Number of channel respondents % Email 15 15 Website 14 14 Press 2 2 Social media 2 2 Letter 45 45 Other 21 21 9

Total 99 100%

Base = 99, 13 respondents did not answer this question. Note per cents do not add to 100% due to rounding (this applies thoughout the report)

5.5 The 21 other responses included: from Residents Association (9), email at work (3), OAKRA (2), word of mouth (2), sign in the park (2) and Cleaver Square RA, neighbour concern, ongoing interest in project (all by a single respondent).

Equalities monitoring 5.6 Appendix F contains a summary of the equalities profile of respondents. The analysis suggests:

• Women and non-white groups may have been under-represented

• There were good levels of representation by younger age groups and by gay men 5.7 It is important to state a degree of caution over this analysis as a demographic profile of the area was not available for comparison.

6 Analysis of consultation responses Comments about our proposals

6.1 We asked for preferred options for the main facade of the head house.

Base = 110, two respondents did not answer this question.

6.2 There was similar level of support for the recessed and lowered options (27, 25 per cent respectively). Just over a third of respondents (38 per cent) said they did not like any of the options.

Options for the bricks to build the facade of the head house 6.3 We asked for preferred options for the bricks to build the facade of the head house.

Base = 109, three respondents did not answer this question.

6.4 Overall option one, Smeed Dean Islington Yellow Rustics, was the most popular option, favoured by over a third of respondents.

Options for the west facade of the head house

6.5 We asked for preferred options for the west facade of the head house.

Base = 110, two respondents did not answer this question.

6.6 The most popular options were option two, vertical brick fin patterning, (25 per cent) and option three, recessed rectangular vertical areas, (18 per cent). However, just over a third of respondents did not like any of the choices.

Options for the landscaping

6.7 We asked for preferred options for the landscaping.

Base = 109, three respondents did not answer this question 6.8 The most popular options were option two, landscaping extended into the southern area with a planted perennial bed, with 33 per cent of respondents, and option three, landscaping extended into the southern corner with an extension of the grassed area, with 27 per cent of respondents. Just over a quarter of respondents did not like any of the options.

Options for the kerb along Kennington Green 6.9 We asked for preferences for the kerb along Kennington Green.

Base = 111, one respondent did not answer this question 6.10 The most popular option was option two with a raised kerb to form a bench, favoured by 55 per cent of respondents. Just under a quarter of respondents did not like any of the options.

Options for the trees at the Green 6.11 We asked for preferences for the trees at the Green.

Base = 110, two respondents did not answer this question 6.12 The most popular option was option one, June Berry, favoured by 38 per cent of respondents. A quarter of respondents did not like any of the options.

Our proposals 6.13 Facade of the head house There was similar level of support for the recessed and lowered options (27, 25 per cent respectively). We have taken this feedback on board, combining the recessed and lowered options so that the fins are articulated further down while being recessed. The fins will now extend to 1.5m above pavement level while also utilising a recessed fin and chamfered brick detailing to provide a level of interest at eye level. This reduces the blank plinth that the planning committee members were concerned about.

6.14 Brick choice Overall option one, Smeed Dean Islington Yellow Rustics, was the most popular option, favoured by over a third of respondents. This has been taken forward to our final design.

6.15 West facade The most popular options were option two, vertical brick fin patterning, (25 per cent) and option three, recessed rectangular vertical areas, (18 per cent). However, just over a third of respondents did not like any of the choices, so we did not gain a clear steer. We have engaged further with LB Lambeth and progressed with the blank wall.

6.16 Landscaping The most popular options were option two, landscaping extended into the southern area with a planted perennial bed, with 33 per cent of respondents, and option three, landscaping extended into the southern corner with an extension of the grassed area, with 27 per cent of respondents. We are therefore proposing to extend the grassed area at the south of the Green and provide perennial plants to provide more green space than was there previously.

6.17 Kerb The most popular option was option two with a raised kerb to form a bench, favoured by 55 per cent of respondents. The kerb will be raised along Kennington Road with a small kerb surrounding the rest of the Green. We believe this is the most accessible option that balances the needs of everyone who will enjoy the Green.

6.18 Trees The most popular option was option one, June Berry, favoured by 38 per cent of respondents. We are therefore proposing June Berry trees in our final designs.

Comments about our proposals

6.19 We asked “please let us have any comments or suggestions about our proposals you have (please indicate clearly which sections or elements you are referring to)”. 71 respondents answered this question. 6.20 A code framework was devised which included key themes and within these themes, identified specific comments. 6.21 This section presents the key themes and comments.

Overall negative comment

Number of responses “The proposal for the head house manifestly does not address the issues given for the Refusal of Consent for Development (ref 16/04115/DET) at the Planning Meeting on 29.11.2016, and contains elements that clearly ignore the Policies Q5, Q9, Q20 & Q22 in the Lambeth Local Plan, 2015.

The engineer led proposals for the Green represent 17 an uninspiring & flawed response to this historic area of Kennington. We challenge TfL & FLO to return to the design process and offer a vision for the Green that focuses on creating a public landscape, in line with the community Plan 15.02:10.b”.

17 people responding to the consultation included this statement.

Number of Positive overall comments responses Overall positive comments 2

Number of Head house responses Should be more in keeping with nearby houses 19 TfL haven't addressed concerns of Planning and local residents 16 Building is ugly/ dull/don’t like the design 16 Should have a green wall or landscaping 3 Should have a front garden 2 There should be a competition for external design and involve residents in judging 1 The old electricity sub station was well designed so the head house should be 1 More clarity required about noise pollution 1 It was agreed in previous consultations there would be a bronze plaque celebrating history of the building 1 Supportive comment 1

Number of Landscaping responses Keep it simple and/or avoid maintenance costs 6 Need for waste bins 3 Concern area will be used by dogs 3 Would like to see more benches/seating 3 Oppose benches/seating 2 Design should discourage loitering 2 Support undulation of grassed areas 2 Oppose undulation of grassed areas 2 Proposals are unimaginative - looks designed to lowest budget 2 Prefer OAKRA community landscaping proposal 2 Prefer community design 2 Oppose community design 2 Concern re desire lines – there needs to be good pathways 2 Lighting is important 2 Home zones – shared space for vehicles and pedestrians on North and West sides of the Green 2 Oppose planting 1 Have a community garden 1 If having a sculpture use a local artist 1 Landscaping - more grass, less concrete 1 Cycle parking provision for visitors 1 19

Extend raised kerb all around the green 1 Prefer local idea to have area landscaped for pedestrians and cyclists 1

Number of Trees responses Trees should be of a more mature size 8 Trees should be more mature – help overcome air pollution 7 There should be more trees planted than in the proposals 4 Support the proposals for planting London Plane trees 4 Trees should also be planted on the western side of the Green 3 There should be more options for trees than in the proposals 2 Don’t support London Plane trees/ too many 1 There should be an option for crab apple trees, historically Green known for exceptional blossom 1 Fruit trees are inappropriate for urban areas given the mess caused by fallen fruit 1 More trees should be planted on the northern side of the Green 1

Number of Bricks responses Lambeth bricks are too orange 1 Lambeth bricks should be used 1

Number of Kerb responses There should be wooden seating on the raised kerb to prevent skateboarding 3 Concerns re loitering and anti-social behaviour 1

Number of Other comments responses Give more weight to the views of Montford Place and Kennington Green residents 1 Have a zebra crossing rather than traffic lights 1

Comments about the quality of the consultation

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

6.23 We received 105 responses to this question.

Quality of the consultation

Category Number of responses Percentage Very good 32 30% Good 26 25% Acceptable 20 19% Poor 13 12% Very poor 14 13%

Base = 105, 7 respondents did not answer this question 6.24 We asked if respondents wished to make any further comments about the engagement. Twenty eight respondents took the opportunity to do so.

Quality of the consultation – further comments

Category Number of responses Number of comments Excellent 2 Exhibition and support from staff Positive excellent 2 Good quality of options 1 Good website 1

Why is there a need for equality Neutral monitoring questions? 1

Local residents views have been ignored 9 OAKRA remained closely connected, however residents feel their views are not being taken into account 2 Negative Should be more options – the options were very similar 2 Should be more opportunity for residents to give their suggestions 1 Should have involved local people earlier 1 21

Rang telephone help number but no one got back to me 1 Exhibition opened late on Saturday 1 Exhibition poorly promoted 1 TfL maps re impact of effects of works on nearby properties are inaccurate 1

7 Responses from stakeholders

7.1 In this section we summarise the views of stakeholders on our proposals. The views are either from engagement meetings before the pre-application consultation started and/or from responses to our consultation.

We received a response from the Woodland Trust which is set out below.

7.2 Woodland Trust

The Woodland Trust commented on the landscaping proposals. With regard to the southern corner of the Green, the Trust preferred option 2 (landscaping extended into the southern corner with a planted perennial bed) as this has the greatest soft area and the potential to plant more trees, as they provide many benefits. They suggested that more trees are planted than indicated in the illustrations.

Under the tree options the Trust preferred Silver Birch, due to that species’ ability to both support wildlife, and to capture particulate pollution. They consider fruit trees would be better suited to a location away from busy roads.

7.3 The Georgian Group

In summary, The Georgian Group were supportive of the options we presented to the community. The Group did not make any comment on the brick types or the facade, as they do not wish to give prescriptive design advice, but made three points:

• Lengthening of the fins to the full extent of the head house is not preferable • Partial lengthening of the fins with the chamfer or recessed panels is preferred • Subtle horizontal banding may be considered however it is acknowledged this would be a departure from the architectural intent

8 Response to issues raised 8.1 In this section we set out our response to the main issues raised. The comments are in bold, with our response beneath it.

Overall negative comment

“The proposal for the head house manifestly does not address the issues given for the Refusal of Consent for Development (ref 16/04115/DET) at the Planning Meeting on 29.11.2016, and contains elements that clearly ignore the Policies Q5, Q9, Q20 & Q22 in the Lambeth Local Plan, 2015.

The engineer led proposals for the Green represent an uninspiring & flawed response to this historic area of Kennington. We challenge TfL & FLO to return to the design process and offer a vision for the Green that focuses on creating a public landscape, in line with the community Plan 15.02:10.b.”

Planning committee members gave us feedback on the following issues:

• The plinth height of the head house led to the design being too heavy and unbalanced

• The proposed brick was not considered acceptable The bulk and massing of the head house was accepted due to technical requirements, and the utilitarian appearance was not considered an issue. Following the planning committee’s refusal, the project team sought to address the key issues raised by the committee members. We met with The Georgian Group to discuss the comments raised in relation to the refused application. The key issues we addressed were the plinth and brick choice. As scale and massing were not raised as a concern by planning committee members, we sought to address the unbalanced design using recesses and extending the brick fins. The Georgian Group expressed a preference for extending the fins and some form of recess. Following discussions with The Georgian Group, the project undertook a consultation programme to engage residents and stakeholders in the revised design and options for both the head house and landscaping. 112 responses were received from the public. There were two options for the eastern elevation of the head house; 30 people preferred the vertical brick fins recessed (Option 1) while 28 24

preferred the lowering of the fins (Option 2). A further 42 people did not like either option. The project team have taken this feedback on board and revised the design further, as shown in Appendix G, combining the two options so that the fins are articulated further down while being recessed. The fins will now extend to 1.5m above pavement level while also utilising a recessed fin and chamfered brick detailing to provide a level of interest at eye level. This reduces the blank plinth that the planning committee members were concerned about. The planning committee also refused the previous application based on the choice of brick. Our team reviewed the brick selection and included a choice of five options (including the previously refused example for reference). Of the five options, the preference was the Smeed Dean Islington Yellow Rustics Brick for 39 respondents. We have therefore selected this option for the head house. We have selected a light sand coloured mortar and a slight recess to complement the brick choice. A number of concrete planters will be located at the base of the head house, which we envisage will become a form of community garden for local residents. These will be moveable structures, in case access is required for the maintenance hatch in the pavement.

Head house Should be more in keeping with nearby houses

TfL haven't addressed concerns of Planning and local residents

Throughout the design process we have listened to residents’ views and sought to accommodate them where practical. This consultation programme for the detailed design of the head house followed formal consultation when applying for our TWAO and regular discussion with residents about their views on the designs. Lambeth’s planning committee gave clear and useful feedback to our proposals in November 2016, which we have strived to achieve in our current proposals.

Building is ugly/dull/don’t like the design

We believe the head house is well designed and complements the surrounding area. We have worked hard to develop a sympathetic design that is balanced with the technical requirements of the head house. Throughout the design process we have listened to residents’ views and sought to accommodate them where practical. This consultation provided a further opportunity for the community to input into the design process.

Should have a green wall or landscaping

We are able to provide potted plants in front of the head house and will take this forward in our final submission. An agreement between the community and Lambeth Council would need to be made for the upkeep of the potted garden.

Should have a front garden

There should be a competition for external design and involve residents in judging

Throughout the design process we have listened to residents’ views and sought to accommodate them where practical. This consultation for the detailed design of the head house followed formal consultation when applying for our TWAO and regular discussion with residents about their views on the designs.

The old electricity substation was well-designed so the head house should be as well

We believe the head house is well-designed and complements the surrounding area. We have worked hard to develop a sympathetic design that is balanced with the technical requirements of the head house.

More clarity required about noise pollution

As part of our previous planning application, Lambeth assigned Condition 14B, requiring us to confirm predicted noise levels generated from the head house when operational. These predictions were approved on the basis of the current head house size on 16/09/2016. The Lambeth Planning reference for this is 16/04117/DET.

It was agreed in previous consultations there would be a bronze plaque celebrating history of the building

We are not aware of this agreement.

Options for the main facade of the head house

Response to preferred options

We will be progressing our designs with a mix of the two options presented; 26

recesses and lowered brick fin panels. The brick fin panels will be lowered to 1.5m above the ground. Please see updated designs in Appendix G.

Bricks Lambeth bricks are too orange

We have been given a steer from the community on the preferred brick type, which is the ‘Smeed Dean Islington yellow rustics’. We will therefore be taking this option forward in our final application rather than Lambeth bricks (which we proposed in our previous planning application).

Options for the bricks to build the facade of the head house

Response to preferred options

We have been given a clear steer from the community on the preferred brick type, which is the ‘Smeed Dean Islington yellow rustics’. We will therefore be taking this option forward in our final application, shown in Appendix G.

Options for west facade of the head house

Response to preferred options

The west facade of the head house will remain free of patterning. This is in keeping with the previously approved design in our TWAO. As 35% of respondents did not like any of the proposed options, we did not gain a clear steer. We have engaged further with LB Lambeth, and progressed with this as our preferred option. We have noted comments around graffiti on the blank wall, and have lowered and recessed the plinths to address these concerns.

Landscaping Keep it simple and/or avoid maintenance costs

We are conscious that Lambeth Council will be responsible for maintaining Kennington Green, therefore have sought to develop a design that is not too onerous from a maintenance perspective. As the determining authority, Lambeth Council will consider maintenance costs when reviewing our plans.

Need for waste bins

A waste bin was removed when we started work in the area. This bin will be replaced on the northern tip of the Green when we complete the landscaping work.

Concern area will be used by dogs

Our landscaping designs propose an open space with no fencing, which will allow it to be enjoyed by everyone. Nearby Kennington Park has a dedicated dog walking area.

Would like to see more benches/seating Oppose benches/seating

We have incorporate seating into our designs along the edge of the Green with Kennington Road. This will also allow for a raised profile of the Green and allow seating without the need to place benches.

Design should discourage loitering

We have considered safety and security in our designs and have not taken forward some ideas which could encourage loitering or antisocial behaviour. Lambeth Council as the determining authority will review our designs from a safety and security perspective.

Support undulation of grassed areas/ Oppose undulation of grassed areas

We are proposing an undulation of the grassed areas to create a more interesting profile of the Green. We do acknowledge that some people prefer a flat surface.

Proposals are unimaginative - looks designed to lowest budget

We believe we have designed a scheme that complements the area, whilst not placing a maintenance burden on Lambeth. We have certainly not designed to the lowest budget and have attempted to take on as many design proposals suggested by the community as possible.

Prefer OAKRA community landscaping proposal

This proposal was also shown at our exhibition. There are a number of design principles from these proposals that align with our plans and we are able to accommodate. We believe our final design is closely aligned to the OAKRA proposal. Some proposals have not been taken forward as we believe they would have an undue impact on residents directly facing the Green.

Prefer Edward Hutchison design/ Oppose Edward Hutchison design

Concern re desire lines – there needs to be good pathways

We agree; we plan to put in high quality pathways around the Green. Before the construction works started, pedestrian desire lines used to be across the Green because of the position of the pedestrian crossing location. The pedestrian crossing has been permanently relocated to the southern end of the Green so the desire lines have been shifted to the pathways around the Green.

Lighting is important

We have considered lighting and will be able to provide wrought iron lampposts to extend what is currently installed along Montford Place.

Oppose planting

A number of residents have asked for a community garden to be provided. We therefore plan to provide potted plants in front of the head house and will take this forward in our final submission. An agreement between the community and Lambeth Council would need to be made for the upkeep of the potted garden.

Have a community garden

If having a sculpture use a local artist

A sculpture is not proposed as part of our final designs.

Landscaping - more grass, less concrete

We have a clear steer from the community that they want more green space. We are therefore proposing to extend the grassed area at the south of the Green to provide more green space than was there previously.

Cycle parking provision for visitors

Our plans do not propose for any additional cycle parking in the area.

Extend raised kerb all around the Green

The kerb will be raised along Kennington Road with a small kerb surrounding the rest of the Green. We believe this is the most accessible option that balances the needs of everyone who will enjoy the Green.

Home zones – would like to see shared space for vehicles and pedestrians on north and west sides of the Green

The same materials will be used for the road and pavement, with a small kerb. This surface will be noticeably different from the asphalt used on surrounding roads and will create the feeling of a shared space, particularly for drivers entering the Green from Kennington Road or Montford Place.

Prefer local idea to have area landscaped for pedestrians and cyclists

Our design proposal is intended to allow Kennington Green to be enjoyed by pedestrians. We have been careful to ensure that this is not simply a cut through but a space that can be enjoyed.

Options for landscaping

Response to preferred options

There is a preference for the green space to be maximised, we will therefore extend the Green to the south and provide perennial plants.

Kerb There should be wooden seating on the raised kerb to prevent skateboarding

Wooden seating may not stop skaters from using the edge of the Green to “grind” their boards on. High quality accessories which do not detract from the high quality finishing of the landscaping will be used to prevent the skaters from using the seating as their playground.

Concerns re loitering and anti-social behaviour

We have considered safety and security in our designs and have not taken forward some ideas which could encourage loitering or anti-social behaviour. The determining authority, Lambeth Council, will review our designs from a safety and security perspective.

Options for the kerb along Kennington Green

Response to preferred options

Raising the kerb along Kennington Road to form a bench was popular and will therefore be taken forward in our final designs.

Trees Trees should be of a more mature size

We are keen to provide the most mature trees possible, while also giving the trees the best chance of survival.

Trees should be more mature – help overcome air pollution

We are keen to provide the most mature trees possible, while also giving the trees the best chance of survival.

There should be more trees planted than in the proposals

We have provided as many trees as possible, while still ensuring there is enough open green space. Some areas cannot accommodate tree planting due to services underneath.

Trees should also be planted on the western side of the Green

We have not put any trees on the western side of the green as there is a maintenance hatch (2.5m by 3m) and a basement structure 400mm under the green. The area around here would need to be kept free to allow cranes to lift equipment in and out.

Trees should also be planted on the North side of the Green

A tree will be placed on the north-western side of the Green to replace a tree that was removed for our works. Blossoming trees will also be planted towards the north end of the Green.

There should be more options for trees than in the proposals

We have sought to provide a variety of ornamental trees for the Green. We have also encouraged people to use the free text box for any other options they would like us to consider.

Don’t support London Plane trees/ too many

We have committed to replace the trees on a 1:1 basis. London Plane trees are consistent with what was there previously and are common all over London, therefore we feel these are the most appropriate tree. 31

There should be an option for crab apple trees, historically Green known for exceptional blossom

We are putting in flowering trees and presented a number of options to the community. The consultation has led to us proposing June Berry trees in our final designs.

Fruit trees are inappropriate for urban areas given the mess caused by fallen fruit

June Berry trees were the preferred option and only have very small fruit which are unlikely to cause a mess when compare to a soft fruit tree such as plum or apple.

Options for the trees at the Green

Response to preferred options

The June Berry trees were the preferred option and will be taken forward in our final designs, shown in Appendix G.

Other comments Give more weight to the views of Montford Place and Kennington Green residents

We have gathered a range of views on our plans from the local and wider community. We have engaged with residents around Kennington Green and Montford Place for a number of years and have considered their suggestions throughout the design process.

Have a zebra crossing rather than traffic lights

We agreed to move the pedestrian crossing to the south of the Green; this has been completed and has traffic lights on it. There are no plans to move the crossing again, or change to a zebra crossing as it will cause further disruption to road users and residents.

Appendix A – Consultation letter and distribution area

Appendix B – Email to stakeholders Sent on 10 March 2017

Dear Stakeholder

Have your say on our plans for the Kennington Green head house and landscaping As part of the Northern Line Extension’s Transport & Works Act Order (TWAO), TfL have planning permission to build a shaft and head house at Kennington Green, which will provide ventilation and emergency access to the Tube once operational. We are now in the process of finalising the detailed design for the head house and would like to seek your views. We would also like your views on the landscaping of the Green, which will start once the Northern Line Extension work has finished. You are invited to a public exhibition to share your opinions and learn more about our proposals. Members of the project team will be available at the sessions.

Where: Henry Fawcett Primary School, Bowling Green Street, SE11 5BZ

When: Thursday 23 March 17:00 to 20:00 Friday 24 March 17:00 to 20:00 Saturday 25 March 10:00 to 13:00 You can also share your opinions at https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/nle/kennington-green. This will open on 23 March and close 20 April. We will be posting the attached letter to addresses in the local area over the next few days and displaying them in our community notice boards. Thanks and have a good weekend. Michael

Michael Tarrega | Stakeholder Communications Manager Northern Line Extension Phone: 0343 222 2424 (24 hours) Email: [email protected]

Appendix C – List of stakeholders contacted

LB Lambeth Cllr Lib Peck Leader of LB Lambeth Cllr Princes Ward & Neighbourhood Lead Cllr David Amos for North Lambeth

Deputy Cabinet Member for Children and Cllr Claire Holland Schools & Cllr Oval Ward

Cabinet Member for Children and Schools Cllr Jane Edbrooke & Cllr Oval Ward

Cabinet Member for Housing and Cllr Jenny Brathwaite Environment

Cllr Joanne Simpson Cllr Princes Ward

Cllr Vaila McClure Cllr Princes Ward

Cllr Jack Hopkins Cllr Oval Ward

Cllr Mohammed Seedat Cllr Streatham Wells Ward & Cabinet Member for Healthier and Stronger Communities

Cllr Nigel Haselden Clapham Town & Neighbourhood Lead for Clapham

Cllr Bernard Gentry Clapham Common & Opposition Group Whip

Cllr Malcolm Clark Cllr Streathem Wells Ward

Cllr Diana Morris Cllr Thornton Ward

Cllr Claire Wilcox Cllr Streatham South Ward

Delivery Coordinator, Business Growth Iago Griffith and Regeneration

LB Southwark Bill Legassik Principal Environmental Health Officer Cllr Mark Williams Cabinet Member for Regeneration and New Homes & Cllr Brunswick Park

Cllr James Coldwell Cllr Newington Ward

Cllr Maisie Anderson Cllr Newington Ward

Cllr Eleanor Kerslake Cllr Newington Ward

MPs Kate Hoey MP MP for Vauxhall Neil Coyle MP MP for Bermondsey & Old Southwark

Greater London Florence Eshalomi AM Assembly Member (AM) for Lambeth & Authority Southwark

Resident Heart of Kennington Resident’s Groups Priscilla Baines Association Oval & Kennington Residents Association Marcus Lyon (OAKRA)

Cleaver Square, Cleaver Street and Bowden Street Residents' Association and Penny Ritchie Calder Neighbourhood Watch

Gordon Johnston Friends of Kennington Park

Kennington & Walworth Neighbourhood Chair Action Group (KWNAG)

Chair Claylands Green NLE Action Group

Conservation Group Georgian Group Organisations Group Woodland Trust

Appendix D – Public Exhibition display boards

Appendix E – Questionnaire

Appendix F – Diversity monitoring of respondents

Gender Total % Male 56 50% Female 41 37% Trans female 0 0% Trans male 0 0% Gender neutral 0 0% Prefer not to say 7 6% Not Answered 8 7% Total 112

Ethnicity Total % Asian or Asian British – Bangladeshi 0 0% Asian or Asian British – Chinese 0 0% Asian or Asian British – Indian 4 4% Asian or Asian British – Other 0 0% Asian or Asian British – Pakistani 1 1% Black or Black British – African 1 1% Black or Black British – Caribbean 0 0% Black or Black British – Other 0 0% Mixed – Other 2 2% Mixed – White and Asian 2 2% Mixed – White and Black African 0 0% Mixed – White and Caribbean 0 0% Other Ethnic Group 0 0% Other Ethnic Group – Arab 0 0% Other Ethnic Group – Kurdish 1 1% Other Ethnic Group – Latin American 0 0% Other Ethnic Group – Turkish 0 0% White – British 69 62% White – Irish 2 2% White – Other 13 12% Prefer not to say 10 9% Not Answered 7 6% Total 112

Age Total % Under 15 0 0% 16-20 6 5% 21-25 3 3% 26-30 11 10% 31-35 9 8% 36-40 6 5% 41-45 8 7% 46-50 11 10% 51-55 15 13% 56-60 9 8% 61-65 6 5% 66-70 5 4% 71+ 7 6% Prefer not to say 11 10% Not Answered 5 4% Total 112

Sexuality Total % Bisexual man 3 3% Bisexual woman 0 0% Gay man 10 9% Heterosexual man 32 29% Heterosexual woman 34 30% Lesbian 1 1% Other 2 2% Prefer not to say 21 19% Not Answered 9 8% Total 112

Faith Total % Buddhist 0 0% Christian 23 21% Hindu 0 0% Muslim 0 0% Sikh 3 3% Jewish 0 0% Other 2 2% No religion 52 46% Prefer not to say 24 21% Not Answered 8 7% Total 112

Disability/health problem lasted or expected to last at least 12 months Total % Yes, limited a lot 4 4% Yes, limited a little 8 7% No 77 69% Prefer not to say 16 14% Not Answered 7 6% Total 112

Appendix G – Updated Computer Generated Images (CGIs) of head house and landscaping