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 London Cross River Tram 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 Camden Town in the north and Peckham and Brixton 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 & Nunhead & 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 Southwark 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 Aldwych to Peckham by 2012. This timescale would correspond to the delivery of major regeneration improvements at the Elephant & Castle, Aylesbury Estate 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 Elephant and Castle 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 Burgess Park, 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.