Final Version 4.5 – 02 November 2007

Item No. Classification: Date: Meeting Name: 7 Open 13th Executive November 2007 Report title: Formal response to Transport for Cross River consultation (route options). Ward(s) or groups All affected:

From: Strategic Director for Regeneration & Neighbourhoods

RECOMMENDATION(S)

1. That the Executive agrees to the submission of a further letter to TfL as detailed in Appendix 1 and notes the contents of this report and the attached supporting documents as set out in Appendices 2-6.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

2. The Cross River Tram is a 16.5 km tramway with a core alignment between Euston and Waterloo with branches to King’s Cross and in the north and and in the south. It’s key objectives are to relieve tube crowding, stimulate regeneration and improve accessibility. The current programme is to submit a TWA application for appropriate powers in mid 2009, with construction starting late 2012 and the scheme operational in early 2016.

3. Between November 2006 and January 2007 TfL undertook a local consultation exercise on route options. The relevant consultation documents are included in Appendix 2. As part of this process TfL undertook a number of public exhibitions at the E&C and Peckham Square. TfL also attended a number of community council meetings including: • Peckham on the 18/12/06 • Joint Peckham & & Peckham Rye on the 15/01/07.

4. The tram was also raised, discussed at the following community council meetings: • Walworth – 13/12/06 • Nunhead & Peckham Rye – 23/01/07 • Camberwell – 04/12/06

5. The council submitted a letter on 30 January 2007 making comments on behalf of the London Borough of by officers and based mainly on previously established positions. This letter is included in Appendix 3. A decision on a preferred route option is expected to be taken by the TfL board later this calendar year. The preferred option will then be developed by TfL and further consultation on the preferred option will be undertaken in late 2008. In order for the council to have a meaningful input into the decision on a preferred route a formal letter should be submitted by the council in November 2007.

6. The council reserved its formal position until it could take full account of the results of the public consultation. This information was received by the council on 10th September 2007. 1

Final Version 4.5 – 02 November 2007

7. The remainder of this report summarises the council’s position in relation to the route options following consideration of the recent consultation results.

KEY ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

Early Implementation

8. The council would like to see implementation as soon as possible. The transport and regeneration benefits of the project, coupled with the fact that a significant section of the route will pass through large areas of Southwark undergoing major redevelopment, mean that it should be given high priority. The council would like completion of the section of route from the to Peckham by 2012. This timescale would correspond to the delivery of major regeneration improvements at the Elephant & Castle, and Peckham, providing a mutually beneficial and joined up programme of investment.

9. The CRT will also improve integration with other modes of public transport at key interchanges such as and Peckham. Early implementation will enable planned rationalisation of bus services in those areas.

Route Options

Waterloo to Peckham

Previously Established Position and Consultation Results

10. The council’s previously established position on this section of the route was set out at the UDP Public Local Inquiry. On consideration of wider policy objectives the council’s aim for , as set out during the UDP process, is to ensure that there is no further fragmentation or loss of amenity as a result of the CRT crossing it. This was endorsed in the Inspector’s Report.

11. Option 2 via Wells Way would achieve no further fragmentation as it stands. Option 1 via Burgess Park would only ensure no further fragmentation if Wells Way is closed to through traffic and incorporated into the park as part of the scheme. In July 2004 the London Borough of Southwark commissioned JMP consulting to undertake a study into the effects of closing Wells Way. This study concluded that in most cases the traffic network around Burgess Park would cope with the closure of Wells Way for part or all of the day. However, significant problems would occur at the junctions of Albany Road/Camberwell Road and Camberwell Road/Bowyer Place. Further assessment of this is required and any adverse impacts would need to be mitigated.

12. 2,494 questionnaires were received for this section, of which about 56% were from Southwark, 16% from Lambeth, 12% from not known and the rest from other areas of London and the UK. 51% of all respondents expressed a preference for option 1 (via Burgess Park). 37% of all respondents preferred option 2 (via Wells Way). 11% had no preference and 1% believe both routes are equally suitable.

13. The results have been further analysed by TfL at borough level, but this does not reflect differences of opinion from one locality to another within Southwark. This shows that 58% of respondents from Southwark expressed preference for option

2

Final Version 4.5 – 02 November 2007

1 (via Burgess Park) with 42% expressing preference for option 2. The most mentioned positive comments given for option 1 were (a) quickest route from Peckham and (b) enhancement of the park. The overwhelming positive comment about option 2 is that it has less impact on the park. The consultation result figures represent a preference which is different from the council’s previously established position.

Additional Factors

14. The council has recognised the relatively low levels of rail provision in Camberwell and it has aspirations for improving choice of public transport here, with one option being connection to the Cross River Tram. Whilst Camberwell is not a proposed destination for any of the current options, the potential for a future extension to Camberwell should be safeguarded. In addition, Option 2 via Wells Way passes closer to Camberwell town centre than Option 1 via Burgess Park. The Camberwell Community Council have made representations on this issue urging the Executive to press for routing of the CRT to pass as close to Camberwell town centre as possible (Appendix 4).

15. The emerging Aylesbury Area Action Plan is considering a further option running down Beaconsfield Road and then Wells Way. This is one of a number of options that could serve the proposed redevelopment. Whilst this was not part of TfL’s consultation the council would like to ensure that any preferred option at this location considers the results of the emerging Area Action Plan. It is crucial that plans for the tram are developed in parallel with the Aylesbury Area Action Plan.

16. On consideration of all these factors and with the information available to date the council supports Option 2 via Wells Way on the grounds that it provides no further fragmentation of Burgess Park and runs closer to Camberwell. In addition, as the Aylesbury Action Plan develops, the benefits of a particular route option for the Aylesbury estate may become apparent. The council would like to ensure that any decision on a preferred route will also take the emerging Aylesbury Action Plan into account. However, the council recognises the results of the public consultation and if TfL explore further option 1 crossing Burgess Park then it should also investigate measures to close Wells Way. Further assessment and traffic modelling would be required on this to determine what mitigation measures may be required for any adverse affects.

Peckham Town Centre & Peckham Town Centre Terminus

Peckham Town Centre Responses

17. 51% of respondents expressed a preference for route option 2 via Jocelyn St/Peckham Library, 26% preferred route option 1 Jocelyn St/Peckham Arch, 22% expressed no preference and 1% considered both routes equally appropriate. When broken down to borough level 68% of respondents from Southwark expressed a preference for route option 2 with 32% preferring route option 1.

Peckham Terminus Responses

18. 44% of respondents prefer route option 2 via Cerise Road, 32% prefer option 1 via Clayton Rd, 23% expressed no preference and 1% rate both routes equally

3

Final Version 4.5 – 02 November 2007

appropriate. At borough level 60% of respondents from Southwark preferred option 2 and 40% preferring route option 1.

Joint Community Council Sub Group & Peckham Town Centre Management Group

19. A Joint Community Council Tram Sub Group has been established, comprising officers from the Peckham Programme and Planning Policy Teams, residents and members from both Peckham and Nunhead & Peckham Rye community councils. Appendix 5 includes a report detailing the views of this group.

20. The main points raised by this group in relation to the choice of route options refer to both positive and negative impacts of the relevant options. These issues are relevant for any environmental impact assessment. As such the council will request that TfL consider these further when they undertake the impact assessment of any chosen option.

21. No clear preference for any of the options presented by TfL emerged from the sub group. However, a number of alternative suggestions have been put forwards, including • Peckham High Street • Sumner Avenue: the current school exit onto Sumner Avenue could be closed and the tram could cut across current school and current Sumner House (council) grounds • Crossing Flax Yard: the tram could leave the path and run along Flax Yard (on current grassed area)/ through the middle of Flax Yard entering the square between the Wetherspoons Pub and The Pulse • Old Kent Road via Queens Road to Morrison’s car park • One-way system around Peckham.

22. The council will request that the issues raised relating to Sumner Avenue and Flax Yard are considered by TfL when they draw up more detailed designs. The council will also request TfL provides an explanation for not considering Peckham High Street. These are important issues that can be dealt with through the continuing development of the project but do not form part of the proposed response to TfL at this stage.

23. The council would not support consideration of the core route passing along the Old Kent Road and terminating in the Morrison’s car park as the core route would not serve catchment areas of either North Peckham or areas close to Camberwell. However, the council would support further investigation of this option for any future extension or depot connection. These ideas will be put forward by the council at the appropriate stage.

24. As a way of relieving tight routes and congested road crossings on the current proposed routes an alternative option is a one-way system on a single track along Jocelyn Street behind the library (following TfL route Option 2) to Morrison’s car park, along Clayton Rd (following TfL route option Option 1) and then south along Consort Rd to Heaton Road, along Heaton Road to Rye Lane and north to the High Street stopping outside Peckham Rye station, and then left (west) along Peckham High Street to rejoin the two track system at Kelly Avenue. This should bring the tram closer to wider populations of Nunhead, Peckham Rye and East Dulwich, with additional interchange with Peckham Rye station. However, any such route should maximise interchange with the bus 4

Final Version 4.5 – 02 November 2007

station. An indicative map showing this route has been included in Appendix 5. The council will request that TfL consider this concept further before finalising it’s preferred option for the Peckham area.

25. The sub group has also put forward views on the depot and in particular whether Ilderton Road can be considered as an appropriate depot location. Whilst the depot is not the subject of this particular consultation, the route and depot are connected and any finalisation of route options in Peckham should integrate with plans for the depot.

26. In addition to the joint sub group the Peckham Town Centre Management Group submitted comments directly to the council. These are included in Appendix 6. The main issues raised by the PTCMG relate to business, retail and traffic/pedestrian flow impact assessments concerning route options to ensure that businesses, visitors and residents will benefit from the tram coming into Peckham town centre. The PTCMG would also like to see and understand how the tram will complement the schools in the area and work with them to help reduce car congestion partly caused by school runs. These issues will be taken up by the council with TfL through the ongoing development of the project.

Other Factors

27. Option 2 via Jocelyn Street/north of Peckham Library cuts across Eagle Wharf. The council is developing plans for this site. These should be factored into any development of this option.

28. The council maintains its position that interchange with the bus station is the most critical factor in this location. There are also opportunities to provide good public transport interchange between the Tram and Peckham Rye overground station.

29. The council supports option 2 of Peckham Town Centre and option 2 of Peckham Terminus. However, the council would like TfL to investigate an alternative one way system option for Peckham along the lines of the concept proposed by the joint Tram Sub Group. Any one-way system should maximise interchange with the bus station.

Waterloo to Oval/Brixton

30. The council’s preferred route is Option 1 via Elephant and Castle. This route interchanges with more underground stations and as such will provide greater congestion relief for both the Northern and Bakerloo lines. It also provides the maximum frequency of to the Elephant and Castle, which, once developed, will become a greater focus of activity than locations served by Option 2. In addition, the council is keen to promote the Elephant & Castle as part of the central London area. The routing of option 1 re-inforces this notion.

31. 52% of all respondents prefer option 1 via the Elephant and Castle with 36% expressing a preference for option 2 via Lambeth North. 11% expressed no preference with 1% rating both routes equally. Further analysis at borough level shows that 79% of respondents from Southwark choose option 1 with 21% choosing option 2. As such the consultation results correspond with the council’s position on this section.

5

Final Version 4.5 – 02 November 2007

32. In addition, the Council and its development partner Lend Lease are commencing a programme of design work which will result in the submission of a planning application for the central area of the Elephant and Castle. The Elephant and Castle team are currently working with the TfL Interchange team to agree a process and programme for joint working during this next phase of design work. The design exercise work will consider how the tram could be accommodated within the central area in a way that is compatible with wider regeneration and planning objectives and in particular the Council's long standing requirement to replace the subways with pedestrian crossings at surface level. TfL’s current policy is to protect the capacity of the strategic road network at the Elephant. However, the introduction of a tram system and associated signal control in the area will make this difficult to achieve. It is essential, therefore, that TfL works with the Council and its development partner in the design process to plan for a phased reduction in the capacity of the strategic network at the Elephant prior to the introduction of the tram and assess how the introduction of further surface pedestrian crossings at the northern roundabout can contribute to the council’s requirements.

33. There are currently 24 bus services running through the area, 8 of which terminate at the Elephant. At peak hours this generates 358 buses on the network. TfL should use this opportunity to review and rationalise existing bus services in the area in the light of the tram route. Such an exercise will be an important factor in finalising plans for the provision of public transport and interchange at the Elephant.

Depot

34. The depot will be the subject of further public consultation in the future. There are diverse local opinions relating to the location of a depot in Peckham. It is critical that both the Peckham and Nunhead & Peckham Rye Community Councils are involved at an early stage in this consultation process. As discussed in the options for Peckham Town Centre the location of the depot and route options for Peckham are intertwined. The council will request that consideration of depot locations and the finalisation of routes through Peckham are undertaken simultaneously.

35. In addition, the joint Tram Sub Group has requested that a site on Ilderton Road is considered as part of TfL’s current review of depot options. Although the depot is not part of the route options consultation, the council will feed these views back to TfL in any discussions it has on the depot.

Policy implications

36. The council has pledged policy support for the Cross River Tram in the adopted Unitary Development Plan, adopted Local Implementation Plan and the Corporate Plan.

37. The council supports TfL undertaking extensive public consultation in line with its community strategy.

Community Impact Statement

38. Southwark is committed to taking proactive steps to promote equality in terms of age, disability, faith/religion, gender, race and ethnicity and sexual orientation.

6

Final Version 4.5 – 02 November 2007

39. The Cross River Tram will have an overall positive impact on people living and working in Southwark. The introduction of a system with accessible rolling stock and accessible tram stops will improve public transport options for disabled passengers in the areas that it serves. Routing through the Elephant & Castle, Aylesbury Estate and terminating in Peckham means that it will also provide better connections for areas of the borough that rank highly according to the Indices of Multiple Deprivation.

40. It is considered that the choice of route options will not affect particular groups differently but may have different effects on individuals in different locations.

Resource implications

41. The submission of a letter to TfL will have no financial, budget or staffing implications. Staff time for submitting this letter has been allowed for in existing revenue budgets and workplans. Any further engagement as a result of this letter will require staff time and may need additional resources. The council is committed to the CRT and further engagement with TfL is required to maintain the council’s role in the project.

42. Southwark council also contributes £75,000 per annum to the Cross River Partnership to sustain a core project team at CRP to work on the tram in addition to other CRP activities.

Consultation

43. The chairs of all community councils were approached for their comments. Responses were received from the Camberwell community council and the joint Peckham and Peckham Rye & Nunhead Community Councils Tram Sub Group. These are detailed in Appendices 4&5.

44. The Peckham Town Centre Management Group also made comments. These are detailed in Appendix 6.

SUPPLEMENTARY ADVICE FROM OTHER OFFICERS

45. Comments have been sought from the Director of Legal & Democratic Services and Finance Director.

46. The council’s position has been developed over a number of years and represents the views of a number of departments, including relevant sections within Environment and housing, Health and social care, Major projects and Regeneration & Neighbourhoods. The consultation results do not significantly change the council’s previously established position. Further comments on this report were sought from relevant sections within the council and have been incorporated.

47. In addition comments from the Corporate Management Team review have been included in both the report and the draft letter.

Director of Legal & Democratic Services

48. There are no legal implications arising from this report as the Executive is asked

7

Final Version 4.5 – 02 November 2007

to agree to submit a letter to TfL with comments following publication of the results of London Cross River Tram consultation (route options). These comments are not provided as part of a statutory consultation process, but in order to give TfL the council’s clear and considered view of the route options.

49. Under Part 3B of the Constitution, it is set out that the Executive shall inter alia have responsibility for the matters set out below, which will inevitably be affected by the London Cross River Tram i.e.: -

a. Determining the authority’s strategy and programme in relation to the social environmental and economic needs of the area; and

b. Agreeing the authority’s response to consultation papers.

50. It is therefore considered to be within the constitutional remit of the Executive to agree the contents of the letter to TfL as set out at Appendix 1 to this report.

Finance Director

51. There are no resource implications arising from this report.

Head of Procurement

52. No procurement issues have been identified.

APPENDICES

No. Title Appendix 1 Draft Letter to TfL Appendix 2 TfL Consultation Documents Appendix 3 Copy of letter from Southwark Officers to TfL (30 Jan 07) Appendix 4 Comments from Camberwell Community Council Appendix 5 Comments from Joint Community Council Tram Sub Group Appendix 6 Comments from the Peckham Town Centre Management Group

AUDIT TRAIL

Lead Officer Paul Evans, Strategic Director for Regeneration and Neighbourhoods Report Author Graham Richards, Group Manager (Policy & Programmes) Version Final Version 4.5

8

Final Version 4.5 – 02 November 2007

Dated 02 November 2007 Key Decision? Yes CONSULTATION WITH OTHER OFFICERS / DIRECTORATES / EXECUTIVE MEMBER Officer Title Comments Comments Sought included Director of Legal and Yes Yes Democratic Services Finance Director Yes Yes Children's services Yes Yes Democratic and legal Yes Yes services Environment and Yes Yes housing Health and social care Yes Yes Major projects Yes Yes Regeneration & Yes Yes neighbourhoods

Executive Member for Yes Yes Regeneration Date final report sent to 02/11/2007 Constitutional/Community Council/Scrutiny Team

9