London Overground extension to

Autumn 2014 Public Consultation report

Public Consultation report Published January 2015

Revision Date Summary of changes

1 12/01/15 First Report

2 21/01/15 Comments from 5 additional stakeholders now included in section 6, (6.3, 6.19, 6.20, 6.21 6.23). Amendments to 1.5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.9 and 5.11 to reflect the change in the balance between the number of public and stakeholder responses.

3 30/09/15 Correction to typographical error in 4.9, question 6.

Contents

1 Executive Summary ...... 4 2 Introduction ...... 6 3 Background to the scheme ...... 7 4 Methodology ...... 7 Scope of consultation ...... 7 Outside the scope of this consultation ...... 8 Consultation objectives ...... 8 Consultation tools ...... 8 The online survey and questionnaire ...... 9 5 Analysis of consultation responses ...... 10 Who responded? ...... 10 How did they hear about the consultation? ...... 13 Question 6 ...... 13 Analysis of open questions 7 and 8 ...... 15 Question 7 ...... 16 Question 8 ...... 16 6 Responses from stakeholders ...... 17 7 Next steps ...... 23 8 Conclusion ...... 23 Appendix A – Copy of the consultation leaflet ...... 24 Appendix B – Leaflet distribution area ...... 29 Appendix C – List of stakeholders consulted ...... 30 Appendix D – Breakdown of responses by borough (Q6) ...... 34 Appendix E – Codes for all issues raised for Q7&8 ...... 35 Appendix F – Issues raised for Q7&8 ...... 37 Appendix G – Roadshow venue details ...... 40 Appendix H – Letter to stakeholders ...... 41 Appendix I – Email to stakeholders ...... 43 Appendix J – Email to Oystercard users...... 44 Appendix K – Online petition ...... 45

1 Executive Summary

1.1 In autumn 2014 Transport for (TfL) conducted a non-statutory six week public consultation on the proposal to extend the Gospel Oak to Barking line from Barking to the Barking Riverside development. The consultation ran from 8 September to 19 October.

1.2 Information about the proposals was made available online along with a consultation questionnaire which included both closed and open questions.

1.3 Members of the public and stakeholders were invited to give their views either by filling in the questionnaire online or by responding via post or email. The proposals could also be viewed and commented upon at three consultation events. Paper copies of the consultation were available on request, together with the questionnaire. Both were also available on request in alternative formats such as large print, audio or another language.

1.4 The consultation was supported by a comprehensive marketing campaign:

 27,000 consultation leaflets were distributed to addresses in the London Borough of Barking and  Over 42,000 emails were sent to Oystercard users in the Borough who had signed up for service updates  Letters and emails were sent to local, London wide and national statutory and non-statutory stakeholder groups and individuals  Adverts in the local press  Roadshow events  Face to face consultation leaflet distribution and updates on the TfL twitter account to alert/remind people about the roadshow events

1.5 The consultation generated 715 written responses, including 23 responses from stakeholders. 99% (685) of the public responses were online, with 1% (11) received by email, post or at an exhibition. We also received a petition from ‘No to Tunnel’ called ‘Boris Johnson: Extend London Overground from Barking Riverside to and Abbey Wood’. The petition gathered 225 signatories during the consultation period.

1.6 We asked three questions about the proposal:  In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking Riverside?  Please tell us why here  Do you have any further comments on this proposal?

1.7 The first question was mandatory and the result was overwhelming positive, with 90% of respondents replying that they supported an extension in principle.

1.8 641 respondents provided further comments on the proposed extension. Overall there were more positive and neutral comments about the proposals than negative. The positive and neutral comments included:

 Support for the proposal because it would improve transport accessibility  Support for the proposal because it would help the area to grow

 General statements of support

1.9 Some of key issues and concerns from the individual and stakeholder responses are summarised as:

 Current and future congestion on the existing two carriage Overground trains  The ability of to accommodate extra passengers  Provision of a second station between Barking and Barking Riverside

1.10 Full details of all the consultation responses are available in section 5 of this report (analysis of consultation responses), section 6 (responses from stakeholders, who preferred to make contributions in writing) and Appendix F (issues raised for Qns7&8).

1.11 An information paper, “’s response to issues raised” is published alongside this report on the consultation website. Everyone who contacted TfL as part of the consultation with an email or postal address will be notified that the report and information paper are available.

1.12 Consultation and engagement on the proposals is ongoing. Since the consultation closed in October 2014, we have engaged further with rail and freight organisations and interested parties whose land or business operations may be impacted by the scheme. The project email address is still active and we continue to respond to individual requests for information by email, by phone or in writing.

1.13 Work on the project continues. We anticipate a second round of public consultation on scheme options in the spring of 2015, when we will also explain why a London Overground extension is preferred over alternative schemes. Depending on the progress of the scheme’s design, which will consider the outcome of the spring 2015 consultation, a third round of public consultation may be necessary before making any application for powers to build and operate a railway extension through a Transport and Works Act Order.

1.14 A summary consultation report, highlighting all the consultation and engagement activities conducted to inform the proposals will be submitted as part of our Transport and Works Act Order application, for powers to build and operate whichever railway extension we decide to pursue.

1.15 Report structure  Section 2 is a high level explanation of what we are proposing  Section 3 provides the background to the scheme and explains why it is necessary  Section 4 describes how we consulted  Section 5 introduces the quantitative and qualitative approach taken in the analysis of responses, together with a breakdown of the headline results. (The full results are reported in appendix F)  Section 6 describes the responses we received from stakeholders  Section 7 is the conclusion of the report and describes the next steps

2 Introduction

2.1 Transport for London is considering an extension of the London Overground Gospel Oak to Barking line. The extension would run from Barking to the Barking Riverside development.

2.2 The extension would operate on the existing Tilbury Loop 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. A new station would be constructed at the end of the extension route at the heart of the Barking Riverside development. The initial proposed route is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The initial proposed route from Barking to the Barking Riverside development

2.3 TfL undertook a public consultation on the outline proposals between 8 September and 19 October 2014. The responses we received will be used to inform further design and planning work before we return for further consultation in 2015.

2.4 Subject to support in principle, funding being developed, further consultation and the proposal being endorsed by the Mayor, we would apply to the for powers to construct and operate the extension through a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO). This application could be submitted by the end of 2015 and if approved, construction could start in early 2017, with trains running by the end of 2019.

3 Background to the scheme

3.1 Barking Riverside is the largest housing development site in . It is part of the Opportunity Area and has planning permission for up to 10,800 new homes, new schools and local community infrastructure. 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 are permitted before a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) powers to build and operate a rail or light rail extension is granted  No more than 4,000 residential units are permitted before the railway is operational

3.2 The original plan was designed around the extension of the (DLR) from Gallions Reach to , via Barking Riverside. DLR 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 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 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 detail on why this option was chosen will be provided in the next round of public consultation in spring 2015.

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 this major new community should be able to comment on the new proposal during the planning phase, before concluding the design and prior to the application for a TWAO.

4 Methodology

Scope of consultation 4.1 The consultation was planned to seek people’s views on the principle of an extension and to identify any local issues which could inform the design and planning of the scheme.

4.2 Particular consideration was given to people living in and around the proposed development site, as well as people using Barking Station. We also consulted with key local stakeholders along the Gospel Oak – Barking line, including the neighbouring Boroughs of Newham, Waltham Forrest, Haringey, Hackney and Camden. However, this did not prevent any stakeholder or member of the public with a view on the proposals from participating in the consultation.

Outside the scope of this consultation 4.3 The following were outside the scope of this consultation. Some will be the subject of further consultation undertaken next year:

 The precise route alignment  The limits of deviation within which the extension could be built, and the extend of the land that may need to be used or acquired  Location of infrastructure such as stations and overhead electrification  Any construction sites, routes or requirements  Any future extension of the proposed scheme, including south of the  Any other complimentary transport interventions  Other conditions relating to Barking Riverside planning application

4.4 While a further extension of the Overground south of the Thames is not part of this project, the possibility of an extension in the future was recognised in the consultation material. Some consultees took the opportunity to express a view, including political stakeholders. We were also happy to take comments on wider transport provision which would compliment the extension, such as the growth of bus services and wider network improvements. 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.

Consultation objectives 4.5 Public consultation is strongly recommended as 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 aspirations and our statutory obligations in other parts of the business. The consultation sought to:

 Introduce the new scheme and understand the level of support in principle  Identify any significant unknown issues and allow for mitigation where possible  Make clear the decision-making process, timescales and next steps and to lay the foundation for further consultation in 2015  Highlight channels through which responses to the consultation could be sent, and make participation easy and inclusive  Inform the design and decision-making process

Consultation tools 4.6 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 online TfL Consultation Tool. Paper copies of the consultation and a questionnaire were available on request to anyone who did not have access to the internet.

4.7 A number of promotional activities were undertaken to support the consultation and let people know how they could participate:

 A leaflet containing the online content was distributed to 27,000 addresses in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. (See appendices A and B)  A comprehensive media campaign, focused in the Borough alerting people to the consultation and how they could become involved  Over 42,000 emails sent to Oystercard users living in the local area  Emails or letters to stakeholders and interested groups, both locally and across London  Three roadshow events held during the consultation period and attended by the project team. (See appendix G)  The roadshows and consultation were also advertised on the TfL Twitter account

4.8 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.

The online survey and questionnaire 4.9 The questions were structured to provide TfL with an understanding of the level of support in principle, and to ensure further comments could inform the development of the project:

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. How did you hear about the consultation?

About the proposals 6. In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking Riverside? 7. Please tell us why here. 8. Do you have any further comments?

4.10 Responses submitted using the online survey received an automated acknowledgement. An information paper, “Transport for London’s response to issues raised” is published alongside this report on the consultation website. Everyone who contacted TfL as part of the consultation with an email or postal address will be notified that the report and information paper are available.

5 Analysis of consultation responses

Who responded? 5.1 The consultation generated 715 written responses. 692 came from members of the public, with 23 from stakeholders. 99% (689) of the public responses were online. 1% (11) was received by email, post or at an exhibition. There were three instances of duplicate responses. The duplicates were consolidated into three single responses, with the remainder removed.

5.2 Not every respondent answered every question. Of the 692 members of the public who responded:

 All 692 responded to question six  634 responded to question seven  423 responded to question eight

5.3 The majority of respondents (94%) provided their home postcode. A large proportion of respondents (644), live in . Focusing on the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham where the extended line would terminate, there were 313 responses and 277 (88%) supported the proposal. The majority of respondents from surrounding boroughs (Redbridge, Newham, Havering, Greenwich, and Bexley) also indicated support for the proposal. Further detail of support by geography can be seen in Figures 2 and 3 on pages 11 and 12.

Figure 2: Distribution of respondents based on Question 6 within Greater London

Figure 3. Distribution of respondents based on Question 6 within London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

How did they hear about the consultation? 5.4 To understand how news about the consultation was received, respondents were asked how they heard about the consultation. Table 1 indicates information channels through which respondents heard about the consultation.

Table 1: Information channels through which respondents heard about the consultation Greater London area London borough of Barking Respondent and Dagenham type Number of % Number of % respondent respondent

Received an 258 37% 171 55% email from TfL

Through social 106 15% 22 7% media Other 94 13% 40 13%

Saw an advert 93 13% 6 2% on the TfL website Read about it 72 10% 14 4% in the press Received a 57 8% 54 17% letter from TfL Not answered 19 3% 6 2%

Question 6 5.5 Question 6 asked “In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking Riverside?” To understand the level of support, we gave respondents four answers from which to choose:

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

5.6 Among respondents whose home postcodes could be mapped, support for the scheme was very high, with 654 or 90% of respondents saying that in principle they were in support of the London Overground extension and 25 or 4% saying they were not.

Figure 4: Proportion of support and opposition from public respondents to the proposal to extend the London Overground within Greater London area

No opinion <1% No 4% Not sure 5%

Yes 90%

Figure 6: Breakdown of support by London Borough

Newham 82% 7% 11%

Havering 90% 3% 7%

Redbridge 100%

Greenwich 91% 6% 3%

Barking and Dagenham 88% 5% 6% 1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Barking and Dagenham Greenwich Redbridge Havering Newham Yes 277 30 30 27 23 No 15 2 0 1 2 Not sure 19 1 0 2 3 No opinion 2 0 0 0 0

Analysis of open questions 7 and 8 5.7 Individual responses for both questions 7 and 8 have been coded to one or many codes as appropriate. The code frames include several overall themes and, within these, specific comments. For example, the consultation received responses about congestion. These comments were further divided by transport mode (London Overground, buses, private cars on the surrounding road network), and by comments and concerns on current or future congestion.

5.8 As some respondents mentioned more than one issue, there were more codes than the total number of responses. Only the most frequently mentioned themes and comments for each question are discussed in this report. A full breakdown of codes is provided in appendix E. The totals recorded against these codes are provided in appendix F.

Question 7 5.9 We asked people to elaborate on their previous answer by asking “please tell us why here”. 634 respondents from members of the public raised 828 issues for Question 7.

5.10 Table 2 shows the top five issues and themes raised. The majority of comments were positive and supported the proposal. Some respondents stated that an extension of the DLR was preferential to a London Overground extension, or should be implemented in addition to the proposed extension on the grounds that it would provide a more direct route to central London or .

Table 2: Top 5 issues raised from question 7 Top five issues from Question 7 Number of comments Support the proposal because the project 298 would improve transport accessibility Support the proposal because the project 208 would help the area to grow General comments about current public 47 transport inaccessibility A DLR extension should be built as well as, or 30 instead of an Overground extension Support the proposal because the project 25 would reduce traffic congestion in the area

Question 8 5.11 We asked “do you have further comments on this proposal?” 423 responses from members of the public raised 466 issues.

5.12 Table 3 illustrates the top five issues and themes raised for question 8. A full breakdown of themes and issues can be found appendix E. The majority of respondents gave positive and supporting comments. A large number commented on a further extension of London Overground south of the river to Thamesmead and Abbey Wood, with a connection with in future. Again, some respondents stated that an extension of the DLR was preferential to a London Overground extension, or should be implemented in addition to the proposed extension on the grounds that it would provide a more direct route to central London or Canary Wharf.

Table 3: Top 5 issues raised from question 8 Top five issues from Question 8 Number of comments Further extension of London Overground to 88 south of the river is required General statements of support 77

A DLR extension should be built as well as, or 52 instead of an Overground extension More stations required as part of the project 40 Build it as soon as possible 35

6 Responses from stakeholders The following groups submitted written responses to the consultation.

Comments from political stakeholders

6.1 Caroline Pidgeon, Chair of the Transport Committee In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking riverside? Yes

Summary of comment: In principle, GLA supports the proposal for an extension of the London Overground Gospel Oak to Barking line to Barking Riverside, and made following recommendations:  The electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking line must be implemented  Further possible onward extension towards Thamesmead and Abbey Wood  Assurances that any extension to Barking Riverside will not result in a diminution of services for London Overground users  A ‘turn-up and-go’ frequency of trains throughout the week  Improved station ambience by deep cleaning and refurbishing  A visible staff presence at every station from first to last train  Improved passenger security with networked CCIV and Help Points at all stations, plus improved lighting and more stations gated  Visual and public address systems providing real-time train service information, supported by a comprehensive online and mobile enabled journey planning system  High quality cycle parking facilities to promote cycling as a means of accessing stations

6.2 Greater London Authority Valarie Shawcross and Labour Group response In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking riverside? Yes

Summary of comment: The route proposed will take the line through three existing neighbourhoods in Thames ward which have very low public transport accessibility Levels and high deprivation levels. We believe there is a strong case for a station in this area. TfL need to investigate whether these deprived neighbourhoods would benefit from having a station built within them.

We would like TfL to consider extending the line south of the river as part of the current consultation. The Mayor has created two opportunity areas south of the River that would benefit from being connected to the ; Thamesmead and Abbey Wood & Bexley Riverside. We can see a situation where the Overground is connected from a station at Barking Riverside to one in Thamesmead and then on to Erith.

6.3 Greater London Authority Andrew Boff, AM In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking riverside? Yes

Summary of comment:  It is vital for the redevelopment of the and the viability of the developments at Barking Reach  Barking Riverside is a marketing name. The station should be called "Barking Reach”  Would it be possible for the to use the line? Barking Reach direct to Fenchurch Street would kick start future development more than the Gospel Oak link

6.4 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking riverside? Yes

Summary of comment: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham in principle strongly support the proposal, and also made following recommendations:  Safeguarding of the Docklands Light Railway line through Barking Riverside  A second rail station near Thames View East  Further extension to Abbey Wood station in Bexley  Examination of possibility of the Hammersmith and City Underground Line using Platform 1 at Barking Station  Assurance of minimum disruption during the works to the proposed new line

6.5 London Borough of Bexley In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking riverside? Yes

Summary of comment: The Council supports 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. The Council would welcome an undertaking from TfL that provision of such a link will not be precluded by the design of the railway at Barking Reach and will form part of the relevant planning process.

6.6 London Borough of Camden In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking riverside? Yes

Summary of comment: Camden Council acknowledges the need to provide additional rail capacity given London’s growing population and related growth in jobs, while encouraging sustainable travel choices, and therefore support the proposal. The extension would make it easier for people to travel between Camden and Barking Riverside.

6.7 London Borough of Redbridge In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking riverside? Yes

Summary of comment: LB Redbridge supports this proposal as the proposed extension will aid movement between Barking Riverside and .

6.8 The Royal Borough of Greenwich In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking riverside? Yes

Summary of comment: The Council supports the proposal, however suggests the Overground extension should be designed in such a way that it can be extended across the to Thamesmead and Abbey Wood (to link with Crossrail).

6.9 Greenwich Green Party In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking riverside? Yes

Summary of comment: Greenwich Green party suggests the London Overground should be extended to Thamesmead and Abbey Wood.

Comments from Statutory Stakeholders

6.10 English Heritage In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking riverside? Yes

Summary of comment: There are no listed buildings or conservation areas on the line of the proposed route. The nearest listed building to a new section of railway is over 1km away, while the closest conservation area is located in Bexley on the southern side of the Thames The route would cross a large gravel eyot (the Barking Eyot) that would have been a prominent and attractive spot for prehistoric activity For these reasons English Heritage supports the proposed route subject to its impact on archaeology.

Comments from utility companies

6.11 Vodafone In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking riverside? No comment

Summary of comment:

Vodafone wish to ensure world class connectivity across London and especially along key transport links. They prepared a high level document illustrating future opportunities in the Barking Riverside area for consideration.

6.12 Thames Water In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking riverside? Yes

Summary of comment There may be network assets such as water mains and sewers in the area proposed for the Overground Extension and Thames Water will be concerned that these are not affected during any construction works. 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.

Comments from the rail and freight industry

6.13 C2C Rail In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking riverside? Yes

Summary of comment: C2C supports the proposed extension of the Gospel Oak-Barking route to Barking Riverside in principle. However, C2C is concerned with the following:  Loading levels on C2C services - The majority of additional passengers will wish to use westbound C2C services  Barking station - The switch of London Overground services will change the flow of passengers and how the station operates on a daily basis immediately in 2019, which will impact the platform stairs and overbridge  station - It is expected West Ham will be a popular destination for passengers from Barking Riverside making connections to Docklands, the West End and, increasingly, to Stratford. The C2C platforms at West Ham are currently cramped, with access to and from the platform limited to only two staircases  Infrastructure and freight services - Over the next five years the new DP World port is expected to generate 50 freight trains a day through platforms 7/8 at Barking

6.14 Rail Freight Group In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking riverside? Not sure

Summary of comment: Rail Freight Group has no objection to the proposals. However, they are concerned about growth both for international rail freight traffic from HS1, domestic traffic into the rail linked facilities and deep sea freight traffic from the Tilbury and London Gateway ports. Rail Freight group suggests the proposals must support growth in rail freight, and not hinder it. This includes in the design of the route, and in timetabling.

Comments from other stakeholders

6.15 Living Streets In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking riverside? Yes

Summary of comment: Living Streets supports the proposal as the improved transport provisions will benefit the planned neighbourhood in the Barking Riverside and connect it with the rest of London. There is a concern that its location will not adequately serve residents of Thames View and Choats Road. Living Street suggests installing another station in the future (perhaps on Choats Road) which would provide better coverage to Thames View and Choats Road.

6.16 London Chamber of Commerce and Industry In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking riverside? Yes

Summary of comment: London Chamber of Commerce and Industry supports the proposal as introducing new and/or improved transport infrastructure to areas that are currently poorly served has a catalytic effect on regeneration, house building, and the delivery of new commercial property and job creation. The London Overground could be extended further to south east London across/under the river, unlocking additional underdeveloped land for new homes and commercial space south of the river, complementing the Crossrail line to Abbey Wood and any future road river crossing at the Gallions Reach site.

6.17 Peabody In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking riverside? Yes

Summary of comment: Peabody supports the proposal, however, an extension of the London Overground not just to Barking Riverside but beyond this to Thamesmead, linking with the forthcoming Crossrail station at Abbey Wood should be considered.

6.18 Southern Housing Group In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking riverside? Yes

Summary of comment: Southern Housing Group supports the proposal and suggests the future trains must have increased capacity or more frequency than the current every 15 minutes to accommodate the extra passengers on the London Overground line.

Comments from special interest groups

6.19 London First In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking riverside? Yes

Summary of comment: For London to remain a flourishing city we need to build more houses. In places such as Barking Riverside, new large scale development will only be possible if new transport links are built to provide better connections with the rest of London.

6.20 Friends of Capital Transport Campaign In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking riverside? Yes

Summary of comment  Better value for money than the previous proposal  It will end the nonsense of platform alterations at Barking which "rival" train operating companies seem reluctant to announce  It must not delay electrification of the line from Gospel Oak

6.21 Thames View Infants School In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking riverside? Yes

Summary of comment:  I have been headteacher of his school for 7 years and know that this an area that is in desperate need for better transport connections and in particular a rail connection. Many of my staff would use this rather than alighting at barking and getting the El1/2.  A second station at east end of Bastable Avenue would serve the Thanes View Estate community. This estate is within the most deprived ward of the 10th most deprived local authority nationally.

6.22 Barking - Gospel Oak Rail User Group In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking riverside? Not Sure

Summary of comment:  Additional passengers originating from Barking Riverside will require the widening of platforms 7&8, the enlarging of the circulating area on the 'train side' of the barriers in the station building above and the installation of lifts &/or escalators to safely handle the increased number of interchanging passengers  Serious consideration to be given to equipping the service with 5-car trains in mid 2017 instead of the 4-car trains planned to avoid congestion on the trains  BGORUG believes that extending the LUL Hammersmith & City Line to Barking Riverside should be investigated and costed. This would greatly reduce the numbers of passengers interchanging at Barking  BGORUG has received representations, asking for a station for the . The best site for this would appear to be on the Tilbury Line at the west end of Ripple Lane Yard, allowing C2C trains to call as well as

service (London Overground or Hammersmith & City line) serving Barking Riverside

6.23 Potters Bar and St Albans Transport User Group In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking riverside? Yes

Summary of comment: Would greatly improve access to an area proposed for redevelopment, where access is poor.

7 Next steps 7.1 Work on the project continues. We anticipate a second round of public consultation on scheme options in the spring of 2015, when we will also explain why a London Overground extension is preferred over alternative schemes. Depending on the progress of the scheme’s design, which will consider the outcome of the spring 2015 consultation, a third round of public consultation may be necessary before making any application for powers to build and operate a railway extension through a Transport and Works Act Order.

7.2 A summary consultation report, highlighting all the consultation and engagement activities conducted to inform the proposals will be submitted as part of our Transport and Works Act Order application, for powers to build and operate whichever railway extension we decide to pursue.

8 Conclusion 8.1 TfL believes that to support the level of housing development required at Barking Riverside, significant public investment in transport infrastructure is clearly required, a view shared by a significant number of respondents to the consultation. 90% of respondents to the consultation agree in principle to an extension of the London Overground to Barking Riverside. We will therefore take the proposal forward to the next phase, consult further 2015 and seek to agree principles for funding the scheme.

Appendix A – Copy of the consultation leaflet

Appendix B – Leaflet distribution area

Appendix C – List of stakeholders consulted

Action for BlindChildren People 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 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 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 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 MiNet/ROTA Multiple Sclerosis Society Muscular Dystrophy Campaign National Children's Bureau (NCB) National Council for Voluntary Youth Services (NCVYS) National Grid Natural

NCVO 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

Appendix D – Breakdown of responses by borough (Q6)

Not No % London borough Yes No sure opinion Total Barking and 277 15 19 2 313 49% Dagenham Greenwich 30 2 1 0 33 5% Redbridge 30 0 0 0 30 5% Havering 27 1 2 0 30 5% Newham 23 2 3 0 28 4% Waltham Forest 23 1 1 0 25 4% Tower Hamlets 24 0 1 0 25 4% 15 0 0 0 15 2% Haringey 14 0 0 0 14 2% Southwark 10 0 0 0 10 2% Hackney 8 1 1 0 10 2% Bexley 10 0 0 0 10 2% Enfield 8 0 1 0 9 1% Wandsworth 9 0 0 0 9 1% Hounslow 7 0 0 0 7 1% Lambeth 7 0 0 0 7 1% Croydon 6 0 1 0 7 1% Islington 6 0 0 0 6 1% Bromley 5 1 0 0 6 1% City of Westminster 6 0 0 0 6 1% Barnet 5 1 0 0 6 1% Hammersmith and 5 0 0 0 5 1% Fulham Kingston upon Thames 4 1 0 0 5 1% Harrow 3 0 1 0 4 1% Sutton 4 0 0 0 4 1% Merton 3 0 1 0 4 1% Brent 4 0 0 0 4 1% Camden 3 0 0 0 3 0% Ealing 1 0 1 0 2 0% City of London 2 0 0 0 2 0% Kensington and 2 0 0 0 2 0% Chelsea Watford 1 0 0 0 1 0% Richmond upon 1 0 0 0 1 0% Thames Hillingdon 1 0 0 0 1 0% Total 584 25 33 2 644 100% % 91% 4% 5% 0% -

Appendix E – Codes for all issues raised for Q7&8

Q7&8 codes are included together as some themes were submitted against both questions.

Support  The proposed extension would help the area to grow (Q7 only) positive comments that the proposal would the help to grow the area  The proposed extension would improve current transport accessibility (Q7 only) positive comments that the proposal would increase transport accessibility of the area  Support with a condition (Q7 only) comments from the respondents who support the proposal only under certain circumstances, recorded in other codes  Build it as soon as possible positive comments indicate the proposal is much anticipated  The plan will reduce traffic and emission (Q8 only) positive comments that the proposal will reduce traffic congestion and emission.

Oppose  Oppose with reasons opposing comments captured in other codes  Impact to property opposing comments about the proposal because the respondents would be directly impacted by the construction of the proposed line  Oppose (without comments) (Q8 only) Opposing comments about the proposal, however no reason was given

Alternative plan suggested:  C2C extension comments about having C2C extended to Barking Riverside or improving the connection  Cycle improvement (Q8 only) comments about having improved cycle facilities around the proposed station  A DLR extension should be built as well as, or instead of an Overground extension comments about having the DLR extended to Barking Riverside  Further extension of the Overground south of the river to Thamesmead and Abbey wood comments about having London Overground extended further south of river in order to connect with Crossrail  Further Overground extension general comments about extending the London Overground network, such as West of Gospel Oak.  General suggestion comments and suggestion about the London Overground, unrelated to the scheme  Improvement of infrastructure on London Overground comments about improving infrastructure of London Overground such as having longer and wider platforms  extension/ improvement comments about having London Underground (District and Hammersmith and City lines) extended to Barking Riverside  Second station required (Q8 only) comments about having additional stations between Barking and the proposed Barking Riverside stations  River service expansion (Q8 only) comments about having improved river service in Barking Riverside

Concern about congestion:  Unspecified modes (current) general comments about current congestion in the area  Unspecified modes (future) general comments about future congestion in the area  On bus (current) (Q7 only) comments concerning current congestion on buses in the area  On Overground (current) (Q7 only) comments concerning current congestion on London Overground  On Overground (future) (Q7 only) comments concerning future congestion on London Overground because of the proposed development  Traffic (current) (Q7 only) comments concerning current traffic congestion in the area  Traffic (future) (Q7 only) comments concerning future traffic congestion in the area because of the proposed development

General Concern  Concern about the location of proposed station comments about the proposed location of the station  Consultation concern (Q7 only) comments about the consultation (materials, content etc)  Current London Overground frequency (Q8 only) comments about current frequency of London Overground  Current reliability of London over ground (Q7 only) comments about current reliability of London Overground which respondents would like to see improvements  Current transport inaccessibility (Q7 only) comments about how currently inaccessible the area is  Future London Overground frequency (Q8 only) comments about the need fore more frequent service on London Overground network  Impact of the proposed scheme (Q7 only) comments concerning about the impact brought about by the proposal  Noise of the proposed line comments about noise concerns of the proposed line

Other  Resident (Q7 only) Comments from local residents (comments captures in other codes)  Overground capacity (Q7 only) Comments about increasing the capacity of Overground line  Not affected by the proposal (Q7 only) Comments from the respondents who feel unaffected by the proposal  Not scheme related (Q8 only) comments not relating to the nature of this consultation.

Appendix F – Issues raised for Q7&8

Question 7 Support The proposal would improve transport accessibility 298 The proposal would help the area to grow 208 The proposal would reduces emission and traffic 25 Support with a condition 8 Build it as soon as possible 4 Oppose Oppose with reasons 14 I live directly near the proposed lines 3 Alternative plan suggested A DLR extension should be built as well as, or instead of an Overground extension 30 Further extension on Overground to Thamesmead or/and Abbey Wood 28

Further extension on Overground (elsewhere, such as West) 15 London Underground extension/ improvement 11 General suggestion 7 C2C extension 6 Improvement of infrastructure needed ( longer platforms etc) 4 Concern congestion Bus (Current) 18 Overground (Current) 15 Traffic (Current) 11 Unspecified (Current) 7 Unspecified (Future) 6 Overground (Future) 5 Traffic (Future) 2 General concern General: current transport inaccessibility 47 Impact of the proposed scheme 5 General: concern the location of proposed station 4 Overground reliability (Current) 4 Noise of the proposed line 3 Not scheme related 3 Consultation (materials etc) 3

Other Resident 25 Overground capacity needs be increased 10 Not affected by the proposal 1

Question 8

Support Support 77 Build it as soon as possible 35 The plan will reduce emission and traffic 6 Oppose Oppose generally 3 Oppose with reasons 2 Impact to property 1 Alternative plan suggested

Further extension on Overground to Thamesmead or/and Abbey Wood 88

A DLR extension should be built as well as, or instead of an Overground extension 52 More stations are required as part of the project 40 Further extension on Overground 32 General suggestion 27 Increase capacity of Overground 17 C2C extension 12 Cycle improvement 6 River service expansion 2 Concern congestion Future congestion 13 Current congestion 9 Barking station

Improvement on infrastructure required (longer platform etc) 10

Concern about crowding at Barking station 9

General concern

Location of proposed station 6 Overground frequency (Future) 5 Noise of the proposed line 4 Overground frequency (Current) 3 Consultation concern 1 Other Not scheme related 4

Appendix G – Roadshow venue details

Barking Library Learning Centre Saturday 20 September 2 Town Square 1300 – 1700 Barking IG11 7NB

Thames View Library Tuesday 23 September Bastable Avenue 1430 – 1900 Barking IG11 0LG

The Rivergate Centre Monday 6 October Barking Riverside 1500 – 2200 Minter Road Barking IG11 0FJ

Appendix H – Letter to stakeholders

Appendix I – Email to stakeholders

On Monday 8 September we will be launching a preliminary consultation on our proposed extension of the London Overground Gospel Oak to Barking line to Barking Riverside. Barking Riverside is the largest housing development in east London, with planning permission for up to 10,800 new homes, as well as healthcare, shopping, community and leisure facilities. Significant transport infrastructure must be built to support the development. Without a rail link, no more than 1,500 homes can be built.

We are proposing a short extension of the London Overground Gospel Oak to Barking line to Barking Riverside. The service would operate from Barking along the existing Essex Thameside Tilbury line and then via a new section of railway that would end at Barking Riverside, where a new station would be built at the heart of this new residential district. Subject to securing the necessary funding and approvals to build the extension, it could open as early as 2019.

Details of the proposals and further background information will be available at tfl.gov.uk/gospeloak-barking from Monday. The consultation will run until 19 October 2014.

Please get in touch with the team through [email protected] if you want to know more.

Kind Regards,

Michèle

Michèle Dix Managing Director, Planning

Transport for London

Appendix J – Email to Oystercard users

Appendix K – Online petition

The following petition was submitted to the project by email. The campaign was started by ‘No to Silvertown Tunnel’ and had gathered 225 signatories by the close of the consultation period.

Letter to Mayor of London Boris Johnson Secretary of State for Transport Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin, MP Transport for London

Extend London Overground from Barking Riverside to Thamesmead and Abbey Wood Transport for London is rightly proposing a new rail link between Barking and Barking Riverside. This is a welcome development, but I believe the London Overground service needs extending further, to Abbey Wood via Thamesmead.

It would give Thamesmead the rail service it was first promised 40 years ago. A new rail link across the Thames would open up jobs and new opportunities on both sides of the river. New connections would be opened up to Bluewater, Lakeside, Southend Airport and the Olympic Park. And residents could do all this without having to take a car, or endure long bus rides.

Barking Riverside is due to have 10,000 new homes, while 7,000 are due to come to Thamesmead. Neither area will reach their full potential without cross-river public transport, yet all politicians are currently offering are crossings for private motor vehicles, disenfranchising those who cannot or choose not to drive.

I believe you're missing out in a big opportunity by not considering a longer extension. Please think again, and invest in the future of Abbey Wood, Thamesmead and Barking Riverside by linking them by rail.