Camden Town Station Capacity Upgrade

Proposed Camden Town Station Capacity Upgrade

Autumn 2015 public consultation report Version 5 March 2016

Proposed Camden Town Station Capacity Upgrade

Autumn 2015 public consultation report Published March 2016

Contents 1 Summary 4 2 Introduction 6 3 Background to the scheme 8 4 Methodology 10 5 Overview of consultation responses 13 6 Analysis of consultation responses 20 7 Responses from stakeholders 34 8 Next steps 40 Appendix A1 – Question 2 comments 41 Appendix A2 – Question 3 comments 46 Appendix A3 – Question 12 comments 50 Appendix B – Consultation leaflet 52 Appendix C – Leaflet distribution area 56 Appendix D – Letter to Stakeholders 57 Appendix E – Email to Stakeholders 58 Appendix G – Letter to near neighbours (leaseholders/tenant of property) 60 Appendix I – Email to Oyster card users 72 Appendix J – Camden Town Library drop-in event poster 73 Appendix K – Press release 74 Appendix L – Public Exhibition display boards 76 Appendix M – Questionnaire 84

1 Summary

1.1 In Autumn 2015 Transport for London (TfL) conducted a nine week public consultation on the proposal to substantially upgrade the capacity of Camden Town station. The consultation ran from 12 October to 11 December 2015.

1.2 Information about the proposals was available online. Members of the public and other stakeholders could give their views either by completing a questionnaire, responding by email or by post. The questionnaire could be filled in either online or by a paper copy.

1.3 The consultation was supported by a comprehensive marketing campaign:

 17,000 consultation leaflets were sent out to local residents and businesses  Emails were sent to 256,000 Oystercard users who have used the station or passed through the station  Letters and emails were sent to local, London wide and national statutory and non-statutory stakeholder groups and individuals  Letters and leaflets were sent to owners of properties who are immediate neighbours of the proposed work site. We also walked around this area and spoke to many businesses about the consultation  Press release  Promotion through Twitter with tweets through @TfL linking to the consultation  Public exhibition over three days, where people could speak to the project team  Leafletting outside Camden Town station on days of the exhibition and a poster at the station  Two afternoon sessions at Camden Town Library where people could meet the project team

1.4 The consultation received 1744 responses, including 26 from stakeholders and interest groups. 94% (1640) of responses were received online, with 6% (104) received by email (49) or paper copy (55).

1.5 We asked three questions about the proposed capacity upgrade:

1. Do you agree or disagree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade of Camden Town station? 2. Please let us have any comments about the need for a capacity upgrade of the station. 3. Please let us have any comments about our proposals for a possible new second entrance for the station

1.6 95% of respondents agreed there was a need for a capacity upgrade of the station (question 1).

1.7 Respondents could make several comments when answering a question. 1199 respondents made 2986 comments about the need for a capacity upgrade (question 2). There were 2084 comments which described why the proposed upgrade is needed. The most frequently made comments: agreed with our rationale for the upgrade; discussed a number of problems of the overcrowding at the station and highlighted that this is important for the regeneration of Camden as a growing business area. We also received 902 comments about general issues about the proposal. The most frequently made comments: gave general support; wanted the proposals to be implemented as soon as possible; highlighted this would ease congestion; and supported step-free access.

1.8 1106 respondents made 2141 comments about our proposals for a possible new second entrance (question 3). The most frequently made comments: supported the proposal in general; that a new entrance is needed; supported the location of the second entrance; considered the proposals would ease congestion; and requested that the sooner the proposals are implemented the better. 1.9 Section 6 of the report provides a summary of consultation responses. Appendices A1, A2 and A3 provide a full breakdown of comments made to the open ended questions.

1.10 We have published a separate report, “Response to issues raised in Autumn 2015 Consultation” together with this report on our consultation website. We will contact everyone who responded to the consultation and provided us with an email or postal address to let them know that both reports are available.

1.11 Engagement on the proposals is ongoing. Since the consultation closed in December 2015 we have engaged further with LB Camden and other stakeholders. There is a project email address [email protected] and we continue to respond to requests for information.

1.11 Work on the project continues. We anticipate a second round of consultation later in 2016 on a possible new building above the proposed second entrance of the station. We also anticipate a third round of consultation in 2017 on the design of the proposals, prior to an application for permission to carry out the capacity upgrade through a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO).

1.12 An overall consultation report, highlighting all the consultation and engagement activities carried out to inform the proposals will be submitted as part of our TWAO.

2 Introduction

2.1 We are proposing to substantially upgrade the capacity of Camden Town station.

2.2 A possible site for a new station entrance would be on Buck Street, between Camden High Street and Kentish Town Road. It would lead to three new escalators and two lifts. Below ground there would be more space to board, alight and change between trains.

2.3 We carried out a public consultation on the need for a capacity upgrade and our proposals between 12 October and 11 December 2015. The responses we received will be used to inform design and planning work before we carry out further consultations.

2.4 Subject to support in principle, funding being agreed, further consultation and the proposal being endorsed by the Mayor, we would apply to the Secretary of State for Transport for powers to build the new second entrance and below ground works. This would be through a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO). This application could be submitted in 2017. A decision could be expected in 2019. If permission is granted for the upgrade works to take place, construction would take about four years with the new station entrance open in 2023/4.

3 Background to the scheme

3.1 Camden Town is a unique and exciting area with a wide range of passengers using the station. We are keen to deliver an upgrade that will give Camden the station it deserves.

3.2 The need for a capacity upgrade at Camden Town station has been considered for many years. In 2000, TfL commissioned a study to assess options for a major station capacity upgrade. The resulting scheme required the demolition and redevelopment of an entire urban block surrounded by Camden High Street, Kentish Town Road and Buck Street within the Camden Town Conservation Area. The application to develop the station was unsuccessful in 2004. Although the transport case was accepted, the TWAO was not granted because of concerns regarding the proposed building above and around the new station ( the over site development) and the impact on neighbouring residents and businesses.

3.3 Since 2004 many more people have been using the station, with a 60 per cent increase over the past 10 years. At peak times there is congestion for people entering and leaving, and for those changing trains. We regularly have to send customers down spiral stairs, make the station exit only, or hold people outside the ticket gates. If we do nothing these measures will become more frequent. The station needs improving so that it can properly support the vibrant local community and economy.

3.4 Future demand for use of the station is set to grow. By 2031 demand will exceed what the station can handle by 7,000 in the mornings and 12,000 in the evenings. The existing congestion problems will only get worse unless there is a substantial upgrade of the capacity of the station.

3.5 The possible new station entrance could be on the site of Hawley Infants School, Buck Street. The school is moving to new premises and the anticipated date for this move is September 2016. The new entrance would lead to three new escalators and two lifts providing step-free access from the street to trains. Below ground there would be more space to board, alight and change between trains. This would in turn enable future capacity benefits on the Northern line.

3.6 The existing station entrance would remain in use with no changes to nearby buildings.

3.7 The station would remain open during busy periods removing the need for frequent crowd control measures.

3.8 In 2016 we will also carry out a public consultation on the building above the proposed new station entrance and ways to improve the public space outside the station entrance. We will work closely with Camden Council to make sure these proposals complement the area’s unique identity and character.

3.9 The capacity upgrade is part of a large investment programme to transform the Northern line including: a signalling upgrade which has achieved a 20 percent increase in capacity through central London; proposed 24-hour Night Tube service on Fridays and Saturdays between Morden and High Barnet/Edgware via Charing Cross; plans to increase capacity and improve stations at Elephant & Castle, Tottenham Court Road and Bank.

4 Methodology

Scope of consultation 4.1 The consultation was designed to seek views on the need for a capacity upgrade of Camden Town station and our proposals for a possible new station entrance.

4.2 We gave particular consideration to residents and businesses around the existing and proposed new station entrance, and customers who use or travel through the station. We also consulted with key local stakeholders including Camden Council. 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 issues were outside the scope of this consultation:

 The building above the proposed new station entrance  Ways to improve the public space outside the entrance (consultation proposed in 2016)  Any construction sites, routes or requirements  Detailed design  Possible ground settlement from the proposed works  Other conditions relating to the planning applications and the TWAO

Consultation objectives 4.4 Public consultation forms part of the guidance on taking schemes through the TWAO process. Consultation enables affected parties to contribute to the development of a project at an early stage, improving the project and avoiding possible objections following submission of an application. This approach is also consistent with our own consultation aspirations and our statutory obligations in other parts of the business. The consultation sought to;

 Introduce the proposals for the capacity upgrade of the station  Understand the level of agreement for the need for a capacity upgrade  Identify any significant unknown issues and allow for mitigation where possible  Make clear the decision-making process, timescales, future consultations and next steps  Highlight the 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 4.5 A range of methods was 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 Portal (Citizens Space). Paper copies of the consultation and a questionnaire were available on request to anyone who did not have access to the internet (appendix M).

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

 17,254 consultation leaflets were distributed to addresses in the local area (see appendix B for the leaflet and appendix C for the distribution area)  256,426 emails were sent to Oyster card users who used the station or passed through the station (appendix I)  Emails and letters were sent to local, London wide and national statutory and non-statutory stakeholder groups and individuals (appendix D and E)  Letters and leaflets were sent to owners of properties who are immediate neighbours of the proposed work site. We also walked around this area and spoke to many businesses about the consultation (appendix F, G) Press release (appendix K)  Promotion through Twitter with tweets through @TfL linking to the consultation  Public exhibition over three days, where people could speak to the project team  Leafleting outside Camden Town station on days of the exhibition and a poster at the station  Two afternoon sessions at Camden Town Library where people could meet the project team (poster advertising sessions appendix J)

4.7 A letter was sent to the residents of 25, Kentish Town Road (this is a property adjacent to the proposed worksite). 4.8 The public exhibition was held at the Trinity United Reformed Church, Buck Street, London, NW2 8NJ. The church is opposite the proposed second entrance for the station. 231 people attended the exhibition:

Date and times Numbers attending Wednesday 21 October 2015 87 12:00 until 20:00 Thursday 22 October 2015 84 12:00 until 20:00 Saturday 24 October 2015 60 11:00 until 16:00

4.9 There were seven display boards at the exhibition (appendix L) and a 3-D model of the proposed new station.

4.10 The two drop-in sessions at Camden Library were held on Tuesday 24 November and Thursday 26 November 2015 between 14:00 and 17:00. We spoke with 15 people at the first session and 18 people at the second.

The online survey and questionnaire 4.11 The questions were designed to provide us with: an understanding of how much respondents agreed there was a need to upgrade the capacity of the station; respondents’ key issues; and respondents’ views about our proposals for a possible second entrance. We also wanted to understand the profile of people responding to the consultation. We aimed to capture comments that could be used to inform the development of the project. A copy of the questionnaire is included as appendix M.

4.12 The questionnaire included the following questions:

About the proposals 1. Do you agree or disagree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade of Camden Town station? (five options) 2. Please let us have any comments about the need for a capacity upgrade of the station (open question) 3. Please let us have any comments about out proposals for a possible new second entrance for the station (open question)

About you 4. What is your name? 5. What is your email address? 6. What is your postcode? 7. In what capacity are you responding to this consultation? (Three options) 8. Which of the following statements best describes how you use Camden Town station? (Three options) 9. How often do you use Camden Town station? This could be to enter or exit the station or to change trains between different branches of the Northern line (Six options) 10. Profile of respondents (Seven options) 11. Are your day to day activities limited because of a health problem or disability which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months? (Four options) 12. How did you hear about this consultation? (Eight options) 13. 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.) (Open question)

4.13 Responses made using the online survey received an automated acknowledgement. We have published a separate report, “Response to the issues raised in the Autumn 2015 consultation” together with this report on our consultation website. We will contact everyone who responded to the consultation and provided us with an email or postal address to let them know that both reports are available.

5 Overview of consultation responses

Who responded?

5.1. The consultation received 1744 responses. 94% (1640) responses were received online, with 6% (104) received by email (49) or by paper copy (55). There were eight instances of duplicate responses. The duplicates were merged to give an individual response. 1718 were from members of the public. Sections 5 and 6 summarise responses from members of the public. 26 responses were from stakeholders and interest groups. Stakeholder responses are summarised in section 7.

How many people answered each question?

5.2. Not every respondent answered every question. Of the 1718 respondents

 1691 responded to Question 1: Do you agree or disagree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade of Camden Town station?  1232 responded to Question 2: Please let us have any comments about the need for a capacity upgrade of the station.  1161 responded to Question 3: Please let us have comments about our proposal for a possible new second entrance for the station.  856 responded to Question 13: 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.) 5.3 We have excluded the non responses in the tables in section 5 and 6 of this report for ease of understanding. The tables contain a footnote of the number of non responses.

Type of respondent

5.4 We wanted to understand the type of respondent and their relationship with the proposed scheme. We asked people to respond to a series of statements under the heading “In what capacity are you responding to this consultation?” Figure 1 shows the results. 97% responded in an individual capacity. We analysed responses which stated they were either: representatives of community, resident or voluntary organisations; or representatives of a business or organisation. 26 were identified as stakeholder responses which are summarised in section 7. 54 were identified as responses where no name of an organisation was provided or which were of a more individual nature or (these were then analysed as responses from individuals)

Figure 1: “In what capacity are you responding to this consultation?”

Question 7: In what capacity are you Number of % responding to this consultation? respondents

As an individual 1570 97%

Representative of a community, resident 43 2% or voluntary organisation*

Representative of a business or 36 1% organisation**

Base = 1649. 95 respondents did not answer this question. * 3 responses were analysed as stakeholder responses, 40 as individual responses **21 responses were analysed as stakeholder responses, 13 as individual responses There were 2 stakeholder responses which did not answer this question

Location of respondents

5.5 1326 (77%) of the respondents provided their full or partial home postcode. If a respondent did not provide a full postcode we were unable to include them in the postcode analysis. 1164 of these addresses were successfully mapped within the Greater London area. There were 472 responses from the London Borough of Camden. There were 331 responses from respondents whose postcodes were within 15 minutes walk distance (1200 meter radius). Figure 9 shows the distribution of respondents within Greater London.

How did respondents hear about the consultation?

5.6 We asked how people had heard about the consultation and figure 2 shows the information channels through which they had heard about it. Over three quarters of all respondents stated they heard about it through an email from TfL.

Figure 2: Information channels through which respondents heard about the consultation

London Borough of All respondents Camden Number of Number of Information Channel % % respondents respondents Received an email from TfL 1238 76% 337 85% Social media 100 6% 9 2% Saw it on the TfL website 99 6% 14 4% Read about it in the press 91 6% 7 2% Other (please specify) 49 3% 11 3% Flyer/newsletter from TfL 38 2% 9 2% Received a letter from TfL 14 1% 10 3% Exhibition 6 0% 0 0%

Base = 1635. 83 respondents did not answer this question

How did respondents use Camden Town station?

5.7 Question 8 asked “Which of the following statements best describes how you use Camden Town station?” and people were given three options to choose from:

 To enter or exit the station

 To change trains between different branches of the Northern line

 I do not use the station. 5.8 Figure 3 shows that the majority of respondents (72%) enter or exit the station, 26% of the respondents interchange at Camden Town station. Only 2% of respondents do not use the station.

Figure 3: “Which of the following statements best describes how you use Camden Town station”?

Base = 1637. 81 respondents did not answer this question.

How often do respondents use Camden Town station? 5.9 Question 9 asked “How often do you use Camden Town station?” and people were given six options to choose from:

 5 days a week

 3 to 4 days a week

 1 to 2 days a week

 1 to 3 times a month

 Less than once a month

 I do not use this station

5.10 Most respondents were frequent users of Camden Town station. 27% use Camden Town station one to three times a month. 22% use the station one to two days a week, and 19% use five or more days a week (figure 4)

Figure 4: “How often do you use Camden Town station”?

Base = 1650. 68 respondents did not answer this question. Reasons for use of the station 5.11 Question 10 asked about the profile of the respondents, and people were given seven options to choose from (they could choose more than one option):

 Local resident

 Business owner

 Employed locally

 Visitor to the area

 Commuter

 Not local but interested in the scheme

 Other

5.12 Respondents were most likely to describe themselves as local residents, commuters and visitors to the area (figure 5)

Figure 5: “Which of the following statements best describes how you use Camden Town station?

Base = 1561. 157 respondents did not answer this question.

Respondents could choose more than one option, therefore percentages have not been included Health and disability 5.13 Question 11 asked “Are your day to day activities limited because of a health problem or disability which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months?”. People were given four options from which to choose:

 Yes, limited a lot

 Yes, limited a little

 No

 Prefer not to say

5.14 The majority of respondents (91%) did not consider their day to day activities were limited. However 7 % of the respondents felt they had limited activities either a little (6%) or a lot (1%). Figure 6 “Are your day to day activities limited because of a health problem or disability which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months?”

Base = 1625. 93 respondents did not answer this question

6 Analysis of consultation responses

Support for the need for a capacity upgrade

6.1. Question 1 asked “Do you agree or disagree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade of Camden Town station?” To understand the level of support, respondents were given five answers from which to choose:

 Strongly agree  Agree  Neither agree nor disagree  Disagree  Strongly disagree

6.2 Support for the scheme was high, with 1581 respondents (95%) stating that they either strongly agree or agree with a capacity upgrade of Camden Town station. 63 (4%) respondents stated that they strongly disagree or disagree the proposal. 24 (1%) of respondents stated that they neither agree nor disagree. Figure 7 displays the level of support for the scheme.

Figure 7: Support and opposition to the need for a capacity upgrade.

Base = 1668. 50 respondents did not answer this question

Level of support within respondents from London Borough of Camden

6.3 There was no significant difference in the level of support from respondents who gave a postcode within the London Borough of Camden compared with respondents living elsewhere. The overall level support for the need for a capacity upgrade of the station was 96% (455) for Camden residents compared with 95% (1581) for all respondents (figure 8).

Figure 8: Proportion of support and opposition to the need for a capacity upgrade from all respondents, and London Borough of Camden respondents

Base = 1668. 50 respondents did not answer this question

6.4 Figures 9 shows the distribution of respondents within Greater London. Responses were concentrated around the station and along the High Barnet and Edgware branches of the Northern line.

Figure 9: The distribution of respondents within Greater London

6.5 Figure 10 shows the distribution of respondents and their stated level of support in surrounding areas. There were no concentrations of opposition to the need for a capacity upgrade.

Figure 10: The distribution of respondents and level of support within surrounding area

6.6 Figure 11 shows the stated level of support in the immediate area within 5 minutes walking distance (400 metre radius) and 15 minutes walking distance (1,200 metre radius) from the existing Camden Town station. There were no concentrations of opposition to the need for a capacity upgrade.

Figure 11: The distribution of respondents and the stated level of support within immediate area

Did the level of support and opposition vary for any other characteristics of respondents?

6.7 We considered the characteristics of respondents to see if there were any significant differences between support for the project including:

 Usage of the station (question 8)  How often respondents used the station (question 9)  Profile of respondents (question 10)  Health and disability (question 11)

6.8 The findings are set out in figures 11 to 15. There were no significant differences when making comparisons by these factors. The support for the need for the capacity upgrade did not vary significantly from the overall level of 95%. A base of 100 is usually required for meaningful comparison of groups.

6.9 The findings show:

 Respondents who did not use the station had a lower level of support than those that did: 87% supported the need, 10% neither agreed nor disagreed (base 39 respondents, figure 12). This pattern of level of support is also shown in figure 13 which shows the frequency of use of the station

 Respondents who preferred not to say whether they had a limiting health or disability had a lower level of support than those who stated whether they had or not: 69% supported the need (15% neither agree nor disagree, 15% disagree (base 32, figure 15)

Figure 12. Q8 Level of support and how respondents use Camden Town station: “Which of the following statements best describes how you use Camden Town station?”

To enter or To change I do not use exit the trains between the station station different Q1 Q8 branches of the Northern line % Number % Number % Number

Agree 96% 1111 96% 399 87% 34 Neither agree 1% 15 1% 4 10% 4 nor disagree Disagree 4% 48 3% 13 3% 1 100% 1174 100% 416 100% 39

Base = 1629. 89 respondents did not answer both questions.

Figure 13. Q9. The level of support and frequency of use of Camden Town station “How often do you use Camden Town station? This could be to enter or exit the station or to change trains between different branches of the Northern line”.

Q 5+ days a week 3 to 4 days a 1 to 2 days a 1 to 3 times a Less than once I do not use Q1 9 week week month a month the station

% Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number Agree 94% 288 93% 208 95% 346 95% 443 97% 255 86% 51 Neither agree 1% 3 1% 3 1% 5 2% 7 1% 2 12% 7 nor disagree Disagree 5% 16 5% 12 4% 14 3% 15 2% 5 2% 1 100% 307 100% 223 100% 365 100% 465 100% 262 100% 59

Base = 1681. 37 respondents did not answer both questions.

Figure 14.Q.10 The level of support based on profile of respondents “Are you?” Not local but Visitor to the Q1 Q10 Local resident Business owner Employed locally Commuter interested in the area scheme Number of Agree 655 20 238 465 508 196 respondents Neither agree Number of 4 1 3 8 11 5 nor respondents disagree Number of Disagree 24 2 8 11 15 4 respondents

Base = 2178 responses. (note respondents could choose more than one option in question 10, therefore percentages have not been included in this table).

6.10 A lower percentage of respondents who preferred not to say if they had a limiting health or disability were agreed with the need (however this is based on a low base of 27 respondents). Figure 15. Q11 The level of support based on health/ disability of respondents “Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or disability which as lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months? (Please include problems related to old age)”

Q Yes, limited a Yes, limited a Prefer not to Q1 No 11 lot little say

% Number % Number % Number % Number Agree 96% 22 94% 91 96% 1401 69% 22 Neither agree 0% 0 0% 0 1% 16 16% 5 nor disagree Disagree 4% 1 6% 6 3% 49 16% 5 100% 23 100% 97 100% 1466 100% 32

Base = 1618. 100 respondents did not answer both questions.

Comments about the need for a capacity upgrade (question 2)

6.11 Question 2 asked “Please let us have any comments about the need for a capacity upgrade of the station”.

6.12 We received 2986 comments to this question from 1199 respondents (respondents could make several comments). There were 2084 comments which described why the proposed upgrade is needed. We have also received 902 comments about general issues about the proposal. 6.13 A code framework was devised which included several overall themes and, within these themes, identified specific comments. For example, the consultation received responses about crowding concerns. These themes were divided by a number of further comments (for example problems relating to the flow of people, problems at the bottom of escalator). 6.14 This chapter discusses the key themes and comments. A full breakdown for all the codes for Question 2 can be found in Appendix A1. We have published a separate report “Transport for London’s response to issues raised” on our consultation website. Comments about need for the capacity upgrade 6.15 Figure 17 shows the top ten themes and comments about why the capacity upgrade is needed. The most frequent five responses: agreed with our rationale for the upgrade; discussed problems of the overcrowding at the station (pedestrian flows, the crowding at the bottom of the escalators, adding to road congestion); and highlighted that this is important for the regeneration of Camden as a growing business area.

Figure 17: Top ten comments for why the proposed capacity upgrade is needed

Top ten comments for Question 2 (about why the proposed upgrade is needed)

Comment Number of Theme comments Generally needed Agree with the TfL rationale for upgrade 341 Crowding Bad (slow) pedestrian flow 287 Bottom of escalators 221 Busy station adds to road congestion 149 Regeneration Camden is a growing business area 124 Current restricted access (peak times/exit Crowding only) 117 Station facilities Better interchange required 115 Concern Current emergency evacuation 104 Crowding Current restricted access (Weekend) 73 Escalator 62

6.16 25 respondents considered there was no need for an upgrade. General comments about the capacity upgrade 6.17 Figure 18 shows the top ten general themes and comments and themes from all respondents answering question 2. For analysis of this part of the question we also considered whether the response was positive, negative, neutral or other. The five most frequently made comments: gave general support; wanted the proposals to be implemented as soon as possible; highlighted this would ease congestion; supported step-free access; or commented that they would like to see a possible future separation of the Northern line.

Figure 18: Top ten general issues for the upgrade

Top ten comments for Question 2 (General issues about the proposal)

Theme Comment Number of Category comments Positive General Support generally (No support reason given) 165 General support Sooner is better 94 Station Ease congestion 89 Station Support step free access 55 General Northern line separation - Other support 28 Positive Station Needs modernising 26 Station Need better platform and Suggestion general information screens 25 Concern Station Future capacity 24 Disruption Disruption while the works Concern are completed 22 Gentrification Concern about gentrification Negative in the area 22

6.18 39 respondents commented on a possible separation of the Northern line of the two branches of the Northern line. 28 of respondents stated that they were keen for a future separation, eight respondents were neutral about this and three were opposed. 6.19 The most frequent concerns were whether there the proposals would allow sufficient capacity at the station, and around the disruption caused by the works. 6.20 22 respondents expressed negative comments that the proposals may increase the gentrification of the area.

Comments about our proposal for a possible second entrance (question 3)

6.21 Question 3 asked “Please let us have comments about our proposal for a possible new second entrance for the station”.

6.22 We received 2141 comments from 1106 respondents. As with Question 2, responses to question 3 were coded. The code framework included many themes and captured specific comments within these themes. For analysis of this part of the question we also considered whether the response was positive, negative, neutral or other.

6.23 A full breakdown of all the codes for Question 3 can be found in Appendix A2.

6.24 Figure 19 shows the top ten themes and comments received. The top five comments were all positive: supporting the proposal in general; that a new entrance is needed; supporting the location of the second entrance; the proposals would ease congestion; and requesting that the sooner the proposals are implemented the better.

Figure 19: Top ten comments about the proposal for a possible second entrance

Top ten comments for Question 3 (proposals for a possible second entrance)

Theme Comment Number of Category comments General Support generally 707 Station facilities Support the location of the second entrance (closer to the market) 175 Station facilities Ease congestion 169 General New entrance is needed 105 Positive General Sooner is better 68 Impact Disruption while works are Concern completed 43 Station facilities Architecture appropriate Suggestion for the area 43 Positive Station facilities Support step free access 41 Gentrification Improves the surrounding Positive area (or streets) 39 Impact Impact on homes and Concern businesses 37

6.25 39 respondents commented positively that the proposed new entrance would improve the surrounding area. On the other hand 34 respondents responded negatively that they were concerned about the proposing increasing gentrification of the area (this was the most frequently mentioned negative comment).

Comments about the quality of the consultation (question 13)

6.26 Question 13 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.).

6.27 We received 1370 comments to this question from 818 respondents. As with questions 2 and 3, responses to question 13 were coded and appendix A3 provides a full breakdown.

6.28 Figure 20 shows the top ten comments from respondents replying to this question. The top five comments were positive about the consultation.

Figure 20: Top ten comments about the quality of the consultation

Top ten comments for Question 13 (quality of the consultation)

Category Number of Comment comments Positive General positive comment 350 Good/easy to read 219 Clear diagrams and explanation 93 Glad to be consulted 82 Well advertised/very informative 73 Negative Not enough information provided 57 Positive Quality drawings and map 56 More More information on the site of the proposed information second entrance 26 Positive Satisfactory for an initial consultation 25 Continue to be informed as consultation/works Suggestion proceed 25

6.29 57 respondents commented negatively stating not enough information was provided (a further 26 respondents requested more information on the site of the second entrance).

7 Responses from stakeholders The following organisations, groups and businesses submitted written responses to the consultation:

7.1 Camden Town Station Stakeholder responses Government bodies LB Camden – Cllr Phil Jones, Cabinet Member for Sustainability and Environment and officer response Strongly agree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade of Camden Town station.

Consider improvements to overcome the problems of overcrowding and queuing at peak times are long overdue. Consider step-free access and an end to crowd control measures would greatly benefit residents and visitors and support the continued vibrancy of Camden Town’s business community.

Will work closely with TfL to develop the scheme to achieve the best outcome for Camden Town, should the consultation indicate public support for the principle of the upgrade.

Noted the proposals for the second entrance on Buck Street are at an early stage, and the proposed site incorporates the Hawley Infants School. Hawley Infants School will be expanding to become an all through primary school in a new school building currently being built on Hawley Road, which is expected to finish in autumn 2016. Noted it will be important for Hawley Infants School to be able to remain on their existing site until they are able to move to their new building. Stated they will work with TfL to ensure that the timing of any sale, should it be agreed, would not disrupt Hawley Infants School before they are able to move.

Noted that the location of the proposed new access is logical but the current configuration of Buck Street is not necessarily suitable for significant numbers of pedestrians. Stated that should the proposed second entrance move forward the council would expect this to include enhancement of the public realm for pedestrians. Expect a commitment from TfL to fully fund those improvements and work with the council to ensure a high quality scheme is delivered in time for the opening of the new station. Expect TfL to work closely with local land owners to ensure all potential impacts and opportunities are carefully considered.

Noted the Council will be the Local Planning Authority for any over site development and expect to work collaboratively with TfL to ensure the scheme meets Camden’s priorities set out in the Local Development Framework and emerging Local Plan.

Public sector organisations

The Metropolitan Police Has not specifically stated whether they agree or disagree with the need for a capacity upgrade at Camden Town station. However, has stated that the proposed new entrance will be welcomed and that the current situation is potentially dangerous, especially during the station closures at peak times. Concerned that at these times the footpaths outside the current entrances are unable to accommodate the amount of people queuing to enter the station, as well as the pedestrian footfall, and those using the bank’s cash machines which 34

result in forcing people out into the road.

Has stated that the second new entrance will improve the security on Buck Street, hopefully by increasing the lighting, CCTV, uniformed presence of TfL staff and increasing the natural surveillance by those who use the station. Feel that these factors could help to tackle the on going anti-social behaviour problem in the area.

Would like the following to be considered:  Pedestrianisation of both Buck Street and Stucley Place – stated that Camden is a tourist destination with large groups of tourists often gathering outside the station and would like there to be a safe place, away from traffic where they can meet. Alternatively there could be a part pedestrianisation of the East side of Buck Street, using the road as a one way Hackney carriage taxi rank.  Signage - concerned that Buck Street is somewhat hidden from view from the main High Street, and as such may be missed. Feel that the current station lacks any real signage and that visitors often have to spend several minutes trying to find their bearings and work out their way to the markets or London Zoo. Would like improved signage to the bus stops.  Policing - Consideration for an office or room dedicated for police officers, ideally with a front desk. Can be staffed by Metropolitan Police and British Transport Police (BTP) bringing at times a 24-hour police presence to the location. Stated that currently the Northern line BTP team are based out of Finsbury Park Police Station. Feel that this could be an excellent opportunity to bring them onto their own Underground line.

Businesses Banks Sadler Ltd Strongly agree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade of Camden Town station and believes that a second new entrance would be a great idea.

Brookdale Care, and Tracscare Strongly agree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade of Camden Town station. Considers that an upgraded station would benefit future generations, and all tube passengers especially those who are disabled or are new to London. Understands that step-free access is needed and would like to see secure platforms like those on the Jubilee line, across the whole tube network. Believes that a second new entrance is a brilliant idea and would like to see it happen sooner rather than later. Camden Town Unlimited Strongly agree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade at Camden Town station. Welcome a second entrance to help distribute passenger movement and to emphasise different parts of the town centre. CLCC - Camden Listening and Counselling Centre Strongly agree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade at Camden Town station. CLCC is based at Trinity United Reform Church and is concerned about what noise and disruption would be like if the works were to go ahead and the impact this would have on those in the surrounding area.

Dexter Moren Associates Strongly agree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade at Camden Town station. Agree in principle about the proposals for a possible new second entrance for the station. Has suggested that Buck Street is pedestrianised and advise that TfL form a strong relationship with the market opposite the proposed entrance, and future developers.

Eclipse Tattoo Strongly agree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade at Camden Town station. Believe that the existing station is too congested, and the proposals would improve Camden.

Feast Creative Ltd Strongly agree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade at Camden Town station. Feels that access to the station needs to improve, along with the speed of entering, exiting and interchanging. Supportive of the second entrance and would like to see it happen as soon as possible.

Getty Images Strongly agree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade at Camden Town station. Feel that more escalators and a bigger ticket hall area are needed. Concerned that there is not enough space at the bottom of the escalators to change between trains and that having the screens there creates more congestion. Agree that a second entrance is needed as it would divert a large volume of people in a different direction, for example those going to the market.

Greggs Plc. Camden Agree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade at Camden Town station. Believe that current station closures are confusing for some people as they do not know how to get to neighbouring stations. Highlighted that at times of restricted access people have to walk down the stairs to enter the station. Agree with a second entrance and would like consideration to even more exits.

KFC Strongly agree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade at Camden Town station. Request that there are minimum station closures during the works. Consider that station closures significantly impact on local businesses and trade. Consider Buck Street needs to be improved.

KOKO Strongly agree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade at Camden Town station. Consider that the upgrade will bring in more tourists, will be safer and better for the Camden economy, as well as better cope with the dispersal of people when the 24 hour tube starts. Supportive of the new second station entrance.

Roundhouse Strongly agree with the need for a capacity upgrade of the station. Expressed support for the proposals.

The Cavendish School Agree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade at Camden Town station. Concerned about the length of time the station will be out of use during building works.

The Glass Building Ltd Strongly agree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade at Camden Town station. Stated that Camden Town is very congested at weekends and in the evenings, and that many young people use it as a place to meet. A larger station is needed to accommodate these crowds and help with the flow of travellers.

Agree that a second new entrance is a good idea. Request that TfL ensure that the new entrance on Buck Street is large enough to accommodate flow capacity and meeting place capacity.

The Leather Wagon Co Ltd Strongly agree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade at Camden Town station. Concerned that currently the area at the bottom of the escalators is too small for the amount of people using the station, and becomes very dangerous when the station is busy and overcrowded.

Agree that Buck Street is a great location. Request that TfL consider two entrances for the proposed new station. Emphasise that it is vital that the existing station remains open during the works to support local businesses and to keep the vibrancy of Camden Town alive.

The Open University Strongly agree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade at Camden Town station. As well as creating extra capacity would like TfL to give consideration to the "flow" of people and particular areas of congestion, for example, at the bottom of escalators where people congregate to read the information boards. Feel that better signage is needed.

Stated that a second new entrance is a very good idea and will help to regenerate the immediate area (Stucley Place). Would like consideration to be given to installing better signage at street level, as well as the possibility of eliminating traffic in Buck Street and Stucley Place.

USApplicants Ltd Strongly agree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade at Camden Town station. Consider that it is extremely difficult to navigate through the crowds and believe that this is made worse by people handing out free publications at entrance to the station. Welcome the proposals for a second entrance and would like to see it opened as soon as possible.

Viacom Strongly agree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade at Camden Town station. Feel that the proposals for a second new entrance is an excellent idea and that Camden is in urgent need of modernisation and better access. www.camden.tv Agree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade at Camden Town station. Would like TfL to reduce fares.

Community organisations Camden Civic Society Agree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade of Camden Town station. Consider that increased capacity is necessary to prevent station closures. Concerned that any work carried out to the station must be properly planned to minimise disruption to passengers as well as people and vehicles at street level. Request that work is not carried out at Camden Town station at the same time as Euston station HS2 redevelopments. Does not object in principle to a second entrance in Buck Street, but would like the new entrance to provide adequate step-free access. Strongly consider that any new building constructed around this entrance should be of an appropriate scale, not too tall and should be in keeping with the surrounding area of Camden. Request that the original Camden Town station building to be kept along with both existing entrances. They hope that in future it will be possible to revert to the original arrangement where it was possible to enter and exit on both the east and the west side of the station. They are pleased that the there is no longer any intention to demolish the Methodist Church or the Electric Ballroom. Primrose Hill Conservation Area Advisory Committee

Agree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade at Camden Town station. Has stated that their members are based in the area and would be affected by the redevelopment of the station, but acknowledge the need for new access and greater capacity at the station.

Would like TfL to ensure that:  Any new building is appropriate in scale to the surrounding area, and no high buildings are made  The mix of uses on the site is protected  Affordable employment space is retained or replaced  New housing is provided which is genuinely affordable by the local community, including the workers who make the Camden Town economy a mixed and vibrant one.  Would like to continue be consulted in the future

Trinity U R Church, Buck St, Camden Strongly agree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade at Camden Town station. Consider that station entrance closures at the weekend are inconvenient.

Transport groups Campaign for Better Transport London Group Strongly agree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade at Camden Town station. The upgrade will help people visiting Camden Market. Believe that the proposals for the second entrance at the school site is an excellent opportunity as it would be an ideal location for passengers, as well as create more space underground between the Edgware and Barnet branches. Supportive if there is an opportunity for Buck Street, east of Stucley Place to become a pedestrian only zone to enhance the rear station entrance.

Railfuture Agree that there is a need for a capacity upgrade at Camden Town station. Support the proposals.

8 Next steps 8.1 We will continue to engage with local residents, businesses and landowners and involve them in the progress of the proposals, seeking ways to mitigate any impact where practicable.

8.2 We anticipate a second round of consultation later in 2016 on the building above the proposed second entrance of the station. We also anticipate a third round of consultation in 2017 on the design of the project.

8.3 Subject to the outcome of the consultations we intend to apply for powers to carry out a capacity upgrade of Camden Town station through a TWAO. If permission is granted by the Secretary of State for Transport, the main works could start in 2019. The upgrade works would take about four years, completing in 2023/4.

Appendix A1 – Question 2 comments Question 2 asked “Please let us have any comments about the need for a capacity upgrade of the station”. Comments were split into two sections, why the proposed upgrade is needed and general issues about the proposal. The ten comments with the highest frequency counts are highlighted. Question 2: Why the proposed upgrade is needed

Need Generally needed Agree with TfL rationale for upgrade 341 Generally needed 11 Crowding Bad (slow) pedestrian flow 287 Bottom of escalators 221 Busy station adds to road congestion 149 Current restricted access (peak times/exit only) 117 Current restricted access (Weekend) 73 Escalator 62 Currently avoiding use of the station 61 Overcrowding (Inside station) 35 Overcrowding (Outside station) 25 Overcrowding (platform) 15 Ticket hall 6 Concern Current emergency evacuation 104 Current Safety 9 Station facilities Better interchange is needed 115 More exit/entrance barriers needed 57 Currently not step free access 54 More waiting and seating space 41 Not enough escalators 41 Current staircase is too dangerous 26 More platforms needed 18 Require a lift 7 New entrance/exit needed 1 Regeneration Camden is a growing business area 124 Camden is a main tourist site 17 Currently confusing for tourists 17 Improve Camden as an area and economy 15 Needed for environmental reasons 8 Upgrade needed to growing population 2 Opposed to upgrade 41

No need for upgrade 25

Question 2: General comments about the proposals

Positive comments Positive General support Support generally (No reason given) 165 Sooner is better 94 Better than the previous proposal 5 Long-term benefits outweigh disruption of upgrade 2 Gentrification The proposal retains the Electric Ballroom 16 The proposal preserves original Camden station 10 Station Ease congestion 89 Support step free access 55 Needs modernising 26 Improve safety 12 Support location of the second entrance (Closer to the market) 9 Second entrance needed 3 Particular need if there will be service split between branches during peak hours 1 Issues of concern

Concern Public realm/ street/ market Risk of closing Camden market 9 Nature and size of buildings above the station 6 Further clarification needed on how the street view will look 2 Anti social behaviour around the proposed entrance 2 Capacity of pedestrian capacity on Buck street 2 Traffic control while upgrade is completed 2 Risk of closing Buck street market 1 General Timescale (too long) 20 Upgrade must co-ordinate with other major infrastructure works e.g. HS2 3 Increase in time taken to change between branches of Northern Line 1 School Closure of school 1 Station facilities Future capacity 24 Limited space on platform/ interchange 19 The proposed design of the station (Too modern) 12 Retain iconic nature of station 3 Step free access 1 Disruption Disruption while works are completed 22 43

Economic and architectural disruption to the area while works are completed 6

Negative comments

Negative opinion Current situation There is no step free access 1 Gentrification Concern about gentrification (Area) 22 Any development around the Electric Ballroom must be aware of music venue status 9 Concern about gentrification (Business) 7 Ruin the character of Camden 7 Generally opposed The proposal does not ease the congestion 7 Upgrade is the wrong priority for TfL 7 Generally opposed (No reason given) 6 The overcrowding doesn't warrant the proposal 4 Oppose having the second entrance 2 Must not be paid for by increased fares 2 Upgrade will increase capacity and lead to more delays 1

Other comments

General/ Other Northern line separation (28 in favour, 8 neutral and 3 opposed) 39 Misunderstanding- considers the Electric Ballroom is being demolished 6 Greater need for other train stations to receive a capacity upgrade 5 Misunderstanding- considers there will be a permanent closure of the existing station 1 Will encourage more visitors and cause residents further disruption 1

Suggestions made by respondents

Suggestion Service/ operation Ensure more trains for the expected increase in capacity 8 Improve train scheduling to avoid spending money on major works 3 General comments about tube operation 2 Needed station facilities Better platform and general information screens 25 More escalators 16 More ticket machine 10 More lift 8 Wider platforms needed 7 44

One way system 6 Another tunnel for interchange 4 Direct lift needed (Street to platform) 4 More staff needed 4 New entrance to have a ticket hall 4 More step free access needed from platforms 3 CCTV and police link 2 Increase size of departure boards 3 More ticket gates needed 2 Signage to be legible for non English speaking passengers 1 New entrance on Kentish Town Road 1 Keep the spiral staircase 1 Two way system 1 Use 2nd station for exit only 1 Public toilets needed 1 Oppose the removal of the ticket office 1 Preservation Keep original Camden station 10 Refurb existing station 4 Linkage to other transport Connect with Camden Road Station (Overground) 3 Re-open Kentish Town South station would resolve capacity issues 3 Additional station needed 2 Better public realm needed (Around the second entrance) 1 Future capacity Make sure the station have the capacity for future 3 Public realm/ street No traffic on Buck street 1 Traffic calming needed on Buck street 1 Signage Better signage to Chalk Farm and Kentish Town to encourage use 1 Other Use the upgrade as an opportunity to improve bus services 1 Design Competition for the re-design of station and get local community involved 1 Future Capacity Upgrade needed to future proof the station and network 14 24 hour tubes will need better station management 1 Further information needed Length of time station will be affected by building work 4

Appendix A2 – Question 3 comments Question 3 asked “Please let us have comments about our proposal for a possible new second entrance for the station”.

Positive comments Upgrade is needed New entrance needed 105 Upgrade will be needed with introduction of night tube 1 General Support generally 707 Sooner is better 68 Better than the previous proposal 21 New entrance is better solution than upgrade of current entrance 1 Use the space above to build social housing/enhance TfL as a landowner 1 Gentrification Improves surrounding area (or streets) 39 Keeping the Electric Ballroom 30 Expansion will benefit local businesses 3 Station facilities Support location of the second entrance (Closer to the market) 175 Ease congestion 169 Support step free access 41 Improve safety 17 Won't affect current station site 7 Proposed entrance location will ensure current station is not impacted 6 Upgrade needed for increasing population 2

Concern Impact Disruption while works are completed 43 Impact on homes and businesses 37 Risk of closing Camden market 9 Impact from other projects 2 Non funded projects in Camden 1 Public realm Supportive if existing historical/cultural buildings are not demolished 16 Anti social behaviour around the proposed entrance 5 School Nursery school 10 Station The proposed design of the station (Too modern) 33 Limited space on platform/ interchange at the proposed station 12 Important that the building above the station benefits the area 9 Future capacity 7 Future station must be staffed 4 Pavement on proposed entrance too narrow 3 46

Distance of two platform (Interchange) being too far apart 2 Lower concourse too small 1 Tourist confusion 1 Street Capacity of pedestrian capacity on Buck street 7 Risk of closing Buck street market 2 Street crimes 2 Timescale Takes too long 22 Time scale not clear 3

Negative comments Public realm Space needed for housing not station extension 1 Current situation Not step free access 1 Generally opposed Generally opposed (No reason given) 10 Upgrade not needed 10 Gentrification Concern about gentrification (Area) 34 Concern about gentrification (Business) 18 2nd entrance/ Exit Oppose the proposed location (Buck street) 7 Ensure that architecture is well designed by experienced architects 6 The proposed station must have harmonious character with Camden 6 Oppose having the second entrance 5 Unsure about location of new entrance 5 General Northern line separation (positive 5, neutral 3, opposed 3) 11 Misunderstanding that the second entrance will close Electric Ballroom 6 Not happy with spending priorities across the tube network 3 Misunderstanding the existing station is to be closed 1

Suggestions General Opportunity to improve environmental initiatives and surrounding cultural area 13 Station facilities Architecture appropriate for the area 43 Existing station must be maintained 22 More space needed (Inside station) 21 More escalators needed 15 Signage to navigate station 15 More lifts needed 13 Quirky architecture of the station 11 47

More exits needed 10 Make sure the station has the capacity for future 9 Preserve some part of the school 9 One way system 6 Build second entrance closer to the first entrance 5 Additional station needed 5 Direct lift needed (Street to platform) 4 Existing station should expand into surrounding buildings 3 Modernise and refurb the existing station 3 More seating space 2 No retail above the proposed station 2 Retail space needed 2 More ticket gates needed 1 Build additional side entrance on Kentish Town Rd 1 Type of lighting 1 More barriers needed 1 Renovate entire station 1 Street No traffic on Buck street 13 Traffic calming needed on Buck street 3 Location Connect with Camden Road Station (Overground) 14 Open south Kentish Town station 12 Distance from station to entrance is too far 8 New entrance on Kentish Town Road 7 New entrance closer to Camden Lock 3 Build an underpass to Camden Road 1 Upgrade Chalk Farm in the longer term 1 Connect with Mornington Crescent 1 Public realm Clear signpost for the second entrance 24 Signage to new entrance to be well lit and visible from surrounding roads 12 Better public realm needed (Around the second entrance) 7 Use the second entrance to improve management of buses 4 Opportunity to improve the area with more lighting and CCTV 3 Using the Buck Street area as a tourist attraction (WW2 shelter) 2 Cycle parking space at the station 1 Ensure Buck Street is kept free of street furniture 1 Invest in walking routes 1 Operation Address other overcrowded stations too 3 Increased frequency of trains needed alongside any new entrance 1 Place entrance near London Zoo to help visitors 1 General suggestion Signpost new entrance 12 Opportunity for social housing to be built above station 3 Ensure new exit is flagged up to interested parties e.g. tour guides 2 48

Appendix A3 – Question 12 comments Do you have any comments about the consultation? (Clarity of information, the supporting documents, roadshows etc). Positive comments General positive comment 350 Good/easy to read 219 Clear diagrams & explanation 93 Glad to be consulted 82 Well advertised/ very informative 73 Quality drawings and maps 56 Satisfactory for an initial consultation 25 Timely and well-presented 21 TfL representative well informed at exhibition 15 On-line survey quick and easily accessible 12 Website easy to navigate 9 Questions don't force pre-determined answers out of comments 2

More information needed on The site of the proposed second entrance 26 Proposed start date 14 The second entrance/ exit 13 Artist's impression of new entrance 12 Local Impact Study 11 Northern line split needed 10 More pictures showing different angles of both the current station 9 Impact on numbers of visitors/local residents/crowd safety outside the 8 Cost of the proposal 5 Disadvantages of the proposal 5 Impact from HS2 5 Interior view of the station space 5 Projects that won't happen as a result 5 3D graphic image 4 Plans above the station 4 Rational choosing this option 3 Better diagram of the new interchange tunnels 2 Difference between northbound and southbound platforms 1 Capacity and frequency 1 Service disruption during the work 1 more question in the consultation survey 1 Plans on how to relieve congestion 1 Security for the area 1 Changes on Buck St 1 Negative comments Not enough information provided 57 50

Inadequate advertising/communication 11 Diagram lacks detail/not clear 10 Concerned about TfL and their motives 8 More choices must be given for open questions 6 More opportunities to comment for open questions must be given 5 General negative comment 4 Changes would ruin the individuality/charm/appeal of the area 4 Do not feel that any TfL consultation will be listened to 4 Lack of clarity over future plans 4 Argument is one sided - negatives not shown 3 Q8 should allow consultees to pick more than one option 3 Not enough 3D diagrams on the vertical layers 2 Literature seems biased towards the proposed changes 2 Not happy with public exhibition event (materials etc) 2 Plans are vague on disability access 2 Concern about analysis of open questions 2 Insufficient information on website 1 No details of proposals for the inside of the station 1 Questionnaire - unhappy about inclusion of Q11 1 Resources and consultation a waste of TfL resources 1 Too many demographic questions 1 Suggestions Continue to be informed as consultation/works proceed 25 Indicate duration of works and impact 15 Provide clearer images of the effect the build will have on the street 14 Would like to be consulted about the design of the new entrance 8 Provide a more detailed map of the Camden Town station's area 5 Exhibition should be open for longer and have more convenient opening 3 Larger 3D plans would help 3 Map and designs linked to web pages so they can be enlarged 2 Would prefer to see more realistic depictions of plans 2 Provide figures on current capacity vs current demand and planned capacity 1 Updates on consultation progress 1 Other Out of scope for this Question (different issue) 40* Content the same as Q2 5 No significant comment 4 Survey should be anonymous 3 (*exc out of scope comments)

Appendix B – Consultation leaflet

Appendix C – Leaflet distribution area

Appendix D – Letter to Stakeholders

Appendix E – Email to Stakeholders

Appendix F – Letter to near neighbours (owners of property)

Appendix G – Letter to near neighbours (leaseholders/tenant of property)

Appendix H – List of stakeholders consulted

London Borough of Camden Cllr Abdul Quadir

Cllr Abi Wood

Cllr Alison Kelly

Cllr Angela Mason

Cllr Danny Beales

Cllr Georgia Gould

Cllr Heather Johnson

Cllr Jenny Headlam-Wells

Cllr Lazzaro Pietragnoli

Cllr Meric Apak

Cllr Nadia Shah

Cllr Nasim Ali

Cllr Patricia Callaghan

Cllr Paul Tomlinson

Cllr Phil Jones

Cllr Richard Cotton

Cllr Roger Robinson

Cllr Samata Khatoon

Officers

Greater London Authority Andrew Dismore AM

Caroline Pidgeon AM

Darren Johnson AM

Dr Onkar Sahota AM

Gareth Bacon AM

Jenny Jones AM

Murad Qureshi AM

Navin Shah AM

Nicky Gavron AM

Richard Tracey AM

Steve O'Connell AM

Tom Copley AM

Valerie Shawcross AM

Victoria Borwick AM

Officers

MPs Keir Starmer MP

Claire Perry MP

Patrick McLoughlin MP

Department for Transport Officers

Resident and community ABC Community Group organisations Agar Grove Tenants Management Co-op Limited

Ampthill Square Tenants and Residents Association

Auden Place Tenants Association

Bangali Parent and Tenants Association

Baptist Gardens Association

Barnes House Tenants and Residents Association

Bartholomew Area Residents Association

Bayham Place Estate Residents Association

Beaumont Walk Tenants and Residents Association

Belsize Avenue (41-43) Tenants and

Residents Association

Belsize Grove (8) Leaseholders Association

Belsize Housing Association

Belsize Park Residents' Association

Belsize Residents Association

Belsize Village Residents and Traders Association

Blashford Tenants and Residents Association

Bray Tenants and Leaseholders Association

Bridge House Leaseholders Association

Broadfield Broadhurst Close and Fairhurst Tenants and Residents Association

Brook and Cranleigh House Tenants and Residents Association

Burnham Residents Association

BUTA Limited

Camden Federation of Private Tenants

Camden Park Residents Association Limited

Camden Square Area Tenants and Residents Association

Camden Square Neighbourhood Association

Camden Town Speaks Residents Association

Camden Village Association

Canfield Place Residents Association

Carol Street Housing Co-op

Castle Road Estate Tenants and Residents Association

Castle Road Residents Association

Castlehaven Community Assocation

Chalk Farm Housing Group

Chalk Farm Parking Action Group

Chamberlain Street Association

Charlton Kings Tenants Association

Chester Terrace Residents Association

Clarence Way Estate Tenants and Residents Association

Collard Place and Part Harmood Street Residents Association

College Lane and Little Green Street Residents Association

College Place Leaseholders Association

Coopers Lane Tenants and Residents Association

Crash

Cresta House Residents Association

Cumberland Market Estate Residents Association

Curnock Street Tenants and Residents Association

Delancey Street Residents Association

Delancey Studios Tenants and Residents Association

Denton Tenants and Residents Association

Dorney Residents Association

Drummond Street Tenants and

Residents Association

Durdans House Tenants and Residents Association

Elaine Court (Management) Limited

Elliott Square Residents Association

Elm Village Residents and Tenants Association

Elsworthy Court Members Company Limited

Elsworthy Residents Association

Evangelist Road Residents Association

Fairfax Place Residents Association

Fairfax Road (12-36) Residents Association

Gaisford Street Leaseholders Association

Georgiana Leaseholders Association

Godwin and Crowndale Tenants Management Co-operative

Goldington Street Estate Tenants and Residents Association

Greenwood Tenants Association

Hadley Street Residents Association

Harmood Clarence Hartland Residents Association

Haverstock Hill Circle Residents Association

Hilgrove Estate Residents Association

Hillfield Court Limited

Ingestre Road Tenants Association

Inkerman Area Residents Association

Jeffreys Street Association

Kelly Street Residents Association

Kenbrook Tenants and Residents Association

Kennistoun, Willingham, Rosemary and Margaret Tenants Association

Leighton Road Neighbourhood Association

Little Green Street Website

Maiden Lane Estate Management Board

Maiden Lane Leaseholders Association

Maiden Lane Tenants and Residents Association

Maitland Park Tenants and Residents Association

Mayford Tenants and Residents Association

Mornington Area Action Group

Mornington District Association

OFE Broadhurst Gardens Tenants and Residents Association

Ossulston Tenants and Residents Association

Park Village and Environs Residents Association

Peckwater Estate Tenants Association

Phoenix Court Community Tenants Association

Primrose Gardens Community Association

Primrose Hill Court Tenants and Residents Association

Prince Albert Road (17-22) Residents Association

Queensmead NW8

Reeds and Rochester Place Neighbourhood Association

Regal Lane Limited

Regents Park Tenants Association

Rhyl Tenants and Residents Association

Sidney Boyd Court Tenants and Residents Association

Somers Town Tenants Association

St Georges Terrace Residents Association

St Johns Court Residents Committee

Stanbury Court Management Limited

Taplow Tenants and Residents Association

Tiptree, Barling & Havering Tenants Residents Association

Torriano Cottages Association

Una House Tenants and Residents Association

Waterside Place Residents Association

Winchester Road Residents Association

Other Camden groups Camden & Westminster Refugee Training Partnership

Camden Carers

Camden Central Library

Camden Direct Information Centre

Camden Drug Intervention Project

Camden Elderly Irish Support Group

Camden LINk

Camden People First

Camden Railway Heritage Trust

Camden Safer Transport Team

Camden Square Conservation Area Advisory Committee

Camden Volunteer Bureau

Conservation Area Advisory Committees

Hawley Wharf Action Group

Neighbourcare St John's Wood & Maida Vale

West Hampstead Amenity And Transport

The Camden Society

Trinity United Reform Church

Primrose Hill Conservation Area Advisory Committee

Redeemed Christian Church of God

Regents Canal Conservation Area Advisory Committee

Business organisations Camden Lock

Camden Town Unlimited

Confederation of British Industry (CBI)

Design Council

Electric Ballroom

London Zoo

Market Tech

Northbank BID

Open University

Pirate Castle

Victoria Business Improvement District

Travel organisations AA Motoring Trust

Association of British Drivers

Association of Car Fleet Operators

Better Transport

British Motorcyclists Federation

Camden Cycling Campaign

Campaign for Better Transport

CTC, the national cycling charity

Freight Transport Association

Green Flag Group

Licenced Taxi Drivers Association

Living Streets

London Cycling Campaign (Camden)

London TravelWatch

Motorcycle Action Group

Motorcycle Industry Association

Road Haulage Association

Royal Mail

Sustrans

Taxi and Private hire

Equality groups Action on Hearing Loss (formerly RNID)

Age Concern London

Age UK

Alzheimer's Society

Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance

Disability Alliance

Disability Rights UK

Disabled Persons Transport Advisory

Committee

Greater London Forum for the Elderly

Guide Dogs for the Blind Association

Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People (JCMBPS)

Joint Mobility Unit

London Older People's Strategy Group

MIND

National Children's Bureau

RNIB

Sense

Sixty Plus

St Mungo's

St Mungos Association North West Floating Support

Stroke Association

The British Dyslexia Association

Other organisations BT

Canal & River Trust London

NHS CCG Central London

NHS CCG Camden

EDF Energy

English Heritage

Foyer Federation

In Holborn

Institute of Civil Engineers

London ambulance Service

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority

Metropolitan Police service

National Grid

RMT Union

Royal Mail

Royal Parks

Thames Water

Unions Together

Unite Union

Appendix I – Email to Oyster card users

Appendix J – Camden Town Library drop-in event poster

Appendix K – Press release

Appendix L – Public Exhibition display boards

Appendix M – Questionnaire