Potential London Overground Stations at Old Oak

Consultation Report

December 2017

Contents

Executive summary ...... 3 1. About the proposals ...... 5 2. About the consultation ...... 9 3. About the respondents ...... 14 4. Summary of all consultation responses ...... 22 5. Next steps ...... 92 Appendix A: Detailed analysis of open text comments ...... 93 Appendix B: Consultation questions ...... 122 Appendix C: Consultation leaflet ...... 127 Appendix D: Stakeholder list ...... 132 Appendix E: Emails ...... 137 Appendix F: Press and online material ...... 139 Appendix G: Campaign emails ...... 142

2 Executive summary

i. This report details the results of a public consultation conducted between 16 October and 22 November 2017 on two potential new London Overground stations at Old Oak. ii. The consultation focussed on capturing views on proposals for two new London Overground stations at Old Oak, sited at Hythe Road and Old Oak Common Lane and followed on from an earlier public consultation on possible station location options that was carried out in autumn 2014.

Support for proposals iii. We received 911 responses to the consultation, 865 of which were received through the consultation website and provided a quantified opinion on the proposals. iv. Of these 865 respondents, 94% supported or strongly supported our proposals for two new London Overground stations at Old Oak. v. 86% supported or strongly supported the proposals for a new station at Hythe Road, and 92% supported or strongly supported the proposals for a new station at Old Oak Common Lane. Additionally, 88% supported the construction of a bridge linking Victoria Road to the station at Old Oak Common Lane.

Summary of issues raised during consultation vi. We also asked respondents to provide comments on the proposals. The main themes are highlighted below, with a detailed analysis provided in chapter 4: A new London Overground station and viaduct at Hythe Road  Passenger interchange between Hythe Road and HS2/Elizabeth Line services  Regeneration of the Old Oak Area  Improved public transport connections for Old Oak A new London Overground station at Old Oak Common Lane  A proposed link bridge connecting Old Oak Common Lane and Victoria Road  Potentially negative impacts of the proposals for local residents  Passenger interchange between Old Oak Common Lane and HS2/Elizabeth line services

3 Further, general comments on two new London Overground stations at Old Oak  Regeneration of the Old Oak Area  Improved public transport connections for Old Oak  Passenger interchange between London Overground and HS2/Elizabeth Line services

Next steps vii. We are now reviewing comments made during the consultation. We will publish our response to issues raised document during spring 2018. viii. We will also provide an update as to any proposed changes to the stations as a result of the consultation when we publish our response to issues raised document.

4 1. About the proposals

1.1 Introduction 1.1.1 Old Oak and Park Royal is one of London’s largest Opportunity Areas and one of the largest development sites in the country, with the ambition to deliver a whole new centre and community for west London which includes 25,500 new homes and 65,000 jobs.

1.1.2 Old Oak is the only place where High Speed 2 (HS2), the new high speed railway between London, the Midlands and the North, meets the Elizabeth line, London’s new East-West railway. A new station at Old Oak Common will open in 2026, providing both connections to the Elizabeth line, HS2 and National Rail services and a hub for regeneration.

1.1.3 In 2014 we consulted on the idea of providing further transport connections to the London Overground network at Old Oak with three options proposed. Over 83 per cent of respondents either supported or strongly supported this idea. There was also a clear preference for Option C which suggested two new London Overground stations; one at Hythe Road on the West London line and one at Old Oak Common Lane on the North London line. A Figure 1 - Potential locations of new London map showing the potential Overground stations location of the stations at Hythe Road and Old Oak Common Lane is shown in Figure 1.

1.1.4 Following on from the 2014 consultation, working closely with Network Rail and the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC), and co-funded by the European Commission, we have undertaken work to develop an initial design for the potential stations at Hythe Road and Old Oak Common Lane.

1.1.5 In 2016 the Mayor of London carried out a review of the overall direction and work programme of the OPDC. The review recommended that additional work should be undertaken to support the case for the potential London Overground stations at Old Oak.

5 1.2 Purpose 1.2.1 From 2026 HS2, the Elizabeth line and National Rail services are expected to call at a new Old Oak Common station and the area will benefit from excellent east – west rail connections, including to central London and Heathrow Airport.

1.2.2 Passengers wishing to travel by rail to Old Oak from the north or south would need to go by London Overground to Willesden Junction. Although Willesden Junction station is 1.5km away from the new Old Oak Common Station, there is no convenient link between the stations which would make it difficult for passengers to interchange between HS2, Elizabeth line or London Overground services.

1.2.3 Providing good public transport connectivity at Old Oak would also support the regeneration proposed in the OPDC’s draft Local Plan (2017), the Old Oak and Park Royal Opportunity Area Planning Framework (2015) and the Mayor’s London Plan (2016).

1.2.4 Following on from the 2014 consultation, and supported with funding from the European Commission, we have worked up an initial design for both stations. Working closely with Network Rail and OPDC the designs have developed, leading to a single preferred option for each station. We have also worked closely with OPDC to ensure these designs would integrate with the proposals set out in its draft Local Plan.

1.3 Detailed description Hythe Road station 1.3.1 Hythe Road station would be situated on the West London line about 700 metres from the Old Oak Common station and in one of the largest development sites within the OPDC area. This development site is owned by the company Car Giant and known as Old Oak Park. Car Giant, supported by the property development company London and Regional, is independently proposing a large-scale redevelopment of its land. A map showing the potentail location of Hythe Road station is shown in Figure 2.

What options have been considered?

• 1A - a new London Overground station on the existing railway embankment, including embankment widening where required

Figure 2 - potential location of Hythe Road station

6 • 1B - a new station and railway viaduct to the north of the existing embankment. This option would mean the removal of the existing embankment

• 1C - a new station and railway viaduct to the south of the existing embankment. This option would also mean the removal of the embankment

1.3.2 Option 1B was presented as the preferred option as it provides greater opportunity for regeneration and the creation of new spaces that support the wider development. In addition, this option reduces the severance caused by the embankment, making it easier for people to move around the area. Information was presented at the public exhibitions to give more detail about our optioneering work. A copy of the work is online and hard copies were available at the three public events.

1.4 Detailed description of Old Oak Common Lane station 1.4.1 Old Oak Common Lane station would be situated about 350 metres to the west of the HS2 and Elizabeth line station, sitting on the North London line between Old Oak Common Lane and Midland Terrace. This station would provide the most convenient interchange between London Overground, HS2, the Elizabeth line and National Rail services. The location of this station is constrained by other railway lines, roads and residential properties. A map showing the potentail location of Old Oak Figure 3 - Potential location of Old Oak Common Common Lane station is shown in Lane station Figure 3.

1.4.2 To the west of Old Oak Common Lane station, there is an aspiration to provide a pedestrian and cycle link, connecting Old Oak Common Lane and Victoria Road. This link would make it easier for people to move around the area as currently the patchwork of railway lines act as a barrier. While a pedestrian / cycle link crossing the railway lines is not essential for the new station, we have included possible provision for such a link in each option as we believe it would be important for opening up the wider area.

7 What options have been considered?

• 2A - a new station with a sub-surface ticket hall and concourse. This option would include potential for an underpass between Old Oak Common Lane and Victoria Road

• 2B - a new station with an elevated ticket hall and concourse. This option would include potential for a bridge, linking pedestrians and cyclists between Old Oak Common Lane and Victoria Road.

1.4.3 Option 2B was presented as the preferred option as it reduces the level of disruption to the railway during construction and provides better value for money. Information was presented at the public exhibitions to give more detail about our optioneering work. A copy of the work is online and hard copies were available at the three public events.

1.5 Detailed description of Victoria Road overpass 1.5.1 As part of the proposals for Old Oak Common Lane station, there is the potential to provide an overpass linking the Old Oak Common Lane station to Victoria Road and Midland Terrace.

1.5.2 Although the provision of an overpass to Victoria Road is not a requirement of the potential station, the design would allow for this to be provided, either at the same time as the station or at a later date. We presented some images of an indicative design of the overpass, as shown in Figure 4. and sought comments on these.

Figure 4 - Indicative design for Victoria Road overpass

8 2. About the consultation

2.1 Purpose 2.1.1 The objectives of the consultation were:

 To give stakeholders and the public easily-understandable information about the proposals and allow them to respond

 To understand the level of support or opposition for the proposals

 To understand any issues that might affect the proposal of which we were not previously aware

 To understand concerns and objections

 To allow respondents to make suggestions

2.2 Potential outcomes 2.2.1 The potential outcomes of the consultation are:

 Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide to proceed with the scheme as set out in the consultation

 Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we modify the proposals in response to issues raised and proceed with a revised scheme

 Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide not to proceed with the scheme 2.2.2 Our conclusion and next steps are set out in Chapter 5.

2.3 Consultation history 2.3.1 This was the second consultation on these potential stations. In 2014, we consulted on the idea of providing transport connections to the London Overground network at Old Oak with three options proposed. Over 83 per cent of respondents either supported or strongly supported this idea. There was also a clear preference for Option C which suggested two new London Overground stations; one at Hythe Road on the West London line and one at Old Oak Common Lane on the North London line. 2.3.2 Following the review of comments made in the 2014 consultation, we developed the two station locations further and this consultation sought views on this work.

9

2.4 Who we consulted 2.4.1 We consulted people who work and live in the surrounding area. We also wanted to seek the views of people who travel through the area and are current users of London Overground services in this area.

2.4.2 We also contacted stakeholders in the area and across London more widely to seek their views.

2.5 Dates and duration 2.5.1 The consultation was open between 16 October and 22 November 2017. We had originally planned to close the consultation on the 17 November 2017. However we received a request from a local residents association to extend the deadline so we kept the consultation open for a further five days.

2.6 What we asked 2.6.1 We wanted to understand the views of the local community on the station locations and the possible designs for the two stations at Old Oak Common Lane and Hythe Road. We also wanted views on the possible bridge linking Midland Terrace and Victoria Road.

2.6.2 We did this by asking specific questions on these elements of the project. There were a mixture of closed and open questions so that consultees had the opprtuinity to provide their views in free text areas in addition to allowing us to get a clear view on the level of support and oppositio to the proposals. A full list of the questions asked can be found in Appendix B.

2.7 Methods of responding 2.7.1 Consultees could complete the online questionnaire at tfl.gov.uk/old-oak-common. They could also email [email protected] and post replies to FREEPOST TfL consultations. A dedicated telephone line was also set up to allow cuonsultees to contactus if needed.

10 2.8 Consultation materials and publicity

Website 2.8.1 All of the consultation material was provided online on a dedicated consultation website at tfl.gov.uk/old-oak-common. The website launched on the 16 October and remains publically available, although people have not been able to leave views on the proposals since 22 November 2017.

Letters and/or leaflets 2.8.2 We consulted the general public in the local area by sending out consultation leaflets to over 48,000 addresses. A copy of the consultation area and the leaflet can be found in Appendix C.

Emails to public transport users 2.8.3 We consulted current public transport users in the area by emailing passengers who have registered their Oyster card with us. This email went out to 135,353 customers. A copy of the email can be found in Appendix E.

Emails to stakeholders 2.8.4 We emailed stakeholders in the area as well as political stakeholders across London. A full list of stakeholders can be found in Appendix D and a copy of the email to stakeholders can be found in Appendix E.

Press and media activity 2.8.5 We published a press release on the day the consultation launched (16 October). This was followed up with three advertisments in the Metro providing customers with details of the consultation and where to go to give views on the proposals. These press advertisments can be found in Appendix F.

Digital advertising 2.8.6 We had an online marketing campaign which advertised the consultation on various websites including. Local news sites and TfL’s home page.

Social Media 2.8.7 The consultation was also publicised through the official @tfl Twitter feed.

11 Public meetings, events and exhibitions 2.8.8 We held three public drop-in events. All the events took place at The Nadi Park Royal, 260 Old Oak Common Lane, London, NW10 6DX and were staffed at all times by members of the project team. The events took place on;

 1230 – 1930 Monday 23 October 2017

 1030 – 1600 Saturday 4 November 2017

 1230 – 1930 Monday 6 November 2017

2.8.9 In total, 68 people attended the exhibitions with Saturday 4 November being the most popular.

2.8.10 Prior to the consultation meeting, a meeting took place with a group of local residents associations to get feedback on the proposals and the materials we were planning on publishing. This took place at the Nadi Park Royal at 1845 on Monday 9 October. As a result of the feedback we received, we amended some images and produced new ones for the consultation. The new images showed the bridge linking Old Oak Common Station and Victoria Road.

Meetings with stakeholders 2.8.11 We offered pre meetings to stakeholders, including both political and local residents groups. Listed below is a breakdown of those who accepted the invite.

Local authorities & statutory bodies  London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham  Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea

Government departments, parliamentary bodies & politicians  Andy Slaughter MP For Hammersmith

Greater London Authority  Navin Shah Assembly Member for Brent and Harrow

Local interest groups  The Island Triangle Residents' Association  Wells House Road Residents Association  Midland Terrace Residents

12

Others  Car Giant / London & Regional Properties

2.9 Analysis of consultation responses 2.9.1 We wanted to provide an independent perspective on the analysis of the consultation so we appointed a third party company to analyse this consultation. The analysis of this consultation was provided by Steer Davies Gleave.

13 3. About the respondents

3.1 Number of respondents 3.1.1 We received 911 responses to the consultation on two new London Overground stations at Old Oak. This included 887 responses from members of the public (97% of the total), and 24 responses from stakeholders (3% of the total), as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 – Number of respondents Respondents Total % Public responses 887 97% Stakeholder responses 24 3% Total 911 100%

3.2 Methods of responding 3.2.1 Table 2 shows the methods that were used to respond to the consultation.

3.2.2 Overall, the majority of responses (94%) were from members of the public using the consultation website, with 3% submitted by members of the public via email. 1% of responses came from stakeholders using the consultation website and 2% came from stakeholders submitting emails.

Table 2 - Methods of responding Methods of responding Total % Consultation website 858 94% Public responses Email 29 3% Consultation website 7 1% Stakeholders Email 17 2% Total 911 100%

14 3.3 Breakdown of respondents by type 3.3.1 Respondents who used the consultation website were asked to provide details of the capacity in which they were responding e.g. resident or commuter.

3.3.2 Of the 865 respondents who used the consultation website, 841 answered this question. Respondents who did not answer were not assigned a category and do not appear in the data.

3.3.3 Accordingly, 63% of the 865 respondents identified as residents, 11% were employed locally, and 10% were not local but interested in the scheme. Figure 5 shows a detailed breakdown by type. This question was multi-code, so respondents could select more than one option.

3.3.4 Respondents who submitted their responses via email did not provide demographic details and so have not been included in this analysis.

Figure 5 - Respondent profile by type

15 3.4 Breakdown of respondents by demographics 3.4.1 We asked those respondents who used the consultation website to provide details of their age, gender and whether they have any physical or mental disabilities.

3.4.2 As respondents who submitted responses via email did not provide this data, the analysis in this section relates only to those 865 respondents who used the consultation website to respond.

Age 3.4.3 Most respondents to the consultation website (79%) were between 16 and 64 years old.

3.4.4 21% of respondents were aged between 26-35, the most common age group. This was closely followed by 46-55 (19%), and 36-45 (17%). 7% of respondents were older than 65, with 1% aged under 15. 7% of respondents preferred not to disclose their age and 6% did not provide a response.

3.4.5 Figure 6 shows respondent ages in further detail.

Figure 6 - Age profile of respondents

16 Gender 3.4.6 Notably more males than females responded to the consultation; 63% to 26% respectively. 11% of respondents preferred not to disclose their gender or did not answer this question. Figure 7 shows the genders of respondents in further detail.

Figure 7 - Gender profile of respondents

17 Disability 3.4.7 We asked respondents whether their day-to-day activities were limited because of a health problem or disability which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months.

3.4.8 680 respondents (79%) reported that their day to day activity was not limited in this way, with 48 (6%) reporting that their day to day activity was limited a little. 23 respondents (3%) said their day to day activity was limited a lot.

3.4.9 Further detail is shown in Figure 8.

Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or disability? 800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 Prefer not to Yes, limited a Yes, limited a No Not Answered say little lot Number 680 53 61 48 23 % 79% 6% 7% 6% 3%

Figure 8 - Disability profile of respondents

18 3.5 Postcodes of respondents 3.5.1 We asked respondents who used the consultation website to provide a postcode, with 719 (83%) doing so.

3.5.2 This data was used to produce Figure 9, which shows the location of respondents who used the consultation website within London. Most respondents are located close to the proposed scheme area in Old Oak Common, with a much smaller number dispersed throughout London.

3.5.3 Figure 10 shows a map of respondents close to the scheme, by respondent type, reflecting the data shown in Figure 5 in that most respondents were residents located close to the proposed station sites.

19

Figure 9 - Consultation respondent locations: London 20

Figure 10 - Consultation respondent location by type: local to scheme 21 4. Summary of all consultation responses

4.1 Analysis method 4.1.1 We received 911 responses to the consultation in total. 865 of these were received via the consultation website and 46 were received via email. Chapter 3 summarises the demographic information about our respondents and the split between members of the public and stakeholders.

4.1.2 We asked respondents who used the consultation website to answer five closed questions on the proposals for two new Overground Stations in the Old Oak area, and provided the opportunity for respondents to elaborate on their response through three open text boxes.

4.1.3 Respondents were also able to submit responses via email. Responses from the public received via email were analysed and allocated as responses to the relevant open question(s). Email responses from stakeholders are summarised at the end of this chapter.

4.1.4 We commissioned Steer Davies Gleave to analyse the open and closed consultation responses.

4.1.5 Closed questions were analysed using Excel. A thematic coding approach, which aims to identify and summarise patterns and themes within qualitative data sets, was utilised to analyse the responses to the three open questions.

4.1.6 A code frame was developed for each of the three open questions, consisting of a series of themes, such as “passenger interchange facilities” which contained detailed comments (or “codes”) capturing the sentiment of each respondent who left an open text response. During the coding process, each open text response was analysed and either a new code was created or the response was added to one or more of the existing codes within the code frame. As an iterative process, some codes were merged as similar themes emerged. This process created a quantitative value for each code and theme which were used to rank themes and comment in terms of popularity.

4.1.7 Initially, the first 100 comments for each open question were coded to develop initial code frames based on emerging comments and themes. These were agreed between SDG and TfL before all remaining open responses received were coded. To ensure consistency of coding, random checks were made on the coding sheets by the Project Director.

4.1.8 This chapter initially summarises the closed and open responses that we received before exploring these in further detail later in the chapter.

22 4.2 Summary of responses to closed questions 4.2.1 We asked respondents who used the consultation website to provide their views, in the form of degree of support or opposition, on five closed questions relating to the proposals. These were:

 What are your views on providing two new London Overground stations in the Old Oak area?

 What are your views on the potential station and viaduct at Hythe Road?

 What are your views on the potential station at Old Oak Common Lane?

 What are your views on a bridge linking Victoria Road to the station? (incorporating a sub-question on construction timescales). 4.2.2 Table 3 shows the degree of support and opposition to each of the above proposals. Responses to the supplementary question on the preferred timescales for construction of a bridge at Old Oak Common Lane station are provided in section 4.6.5.

4.2.3 As respondents who submitted responses via email did not directly answer these questions, this analysis relates only to the respondents who used the consultation website.

Table 3 - The degree of support for each proposal (gathered through closed questions) Neither Strongly Strongly Support Oppose support or support oppose oppose

What are your No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % views on…

Providing two new London Overground 681 79% 130 15% 9 1% 16 2% 29 3% stations in the Old Oak area

The potential station and 509 59% 230 27% 12 1% 24 3% 86 10% viaduct at Hythe Road

Old Oak 864 72% 176 20% 13 2% 21 2% 29 3% Common Lane

A bridge linking Victoria Road to 567 66% 188 22% 14 2% 20 2% 69 8% the station

23 4.3 Summary of responses to open questions 4.3.1 Respondents were invited to provide open text comments on the proposals generally, on the proposed station at Hythe Road, and on the proposed station at Old Oak Common Lane.

4.3.2 Table 4 shows a summary of the top five comments made for each open question.

4.3.3 Each of these comments is contained within a broader theme, with the most popular comments not necessarily reflecting the most popular themes.

4.3.4 Responses to each open question, including figures on the most popular themes are outlined in further detail throughout this chapter and provided in full in Appendix A.

Table 4 - Summary of most commonly raised issues for each open question Further, general comments Hythe Road Old Oak Common Lane

General support of two new General support for the General support for the Overground stations in the Old proposed station at Hythe proposed station at Old Oak Oak area Road Common Lane

Suggestion that interchange Concern that the proposed between London Overground interchange between London Support for the proposals due to services at Old Oak Common Overground services at Hythe regeneration of the Old Oak area Lane and HS2/Elizabeth line Road and HS2/Elizabeth Line services is made as convenient services is too far as possible

Support for the proposals due to Support for the proposed enhanced public transport station at Hythe Road due to Support for a bridge link to connectivity to/from the Old Oak regeneration of the Old Oak Victoria Road area area

Support for the proposed Support for the proposed Support for the principle of station at Hythe Road station station at Old Oak Common interchange between London due to enhanced public Lane due to the potential for Overground services and transport access to regeneration of the Old Oak HS2/Elizabeth Line services employment and housing area

Suggestion that passenger interchange between London Support for the principle of Support for the proposed Overground services and interchange between London station at Old Oak Common services at Old Oak Common Overground services at Hythe Lane due to potential for HS2/Elizabeth Line station must Road and HS2/Elizabeth Line enhanced connectivity into/out be made as convenient as services of Old Oak Common possible

24 4.4 Summary of responses on providing two new London Overground stations in the Old Oak area

Summary of responses to closed question, “what are your views on on providing two new London Overground stations in the Old Oak Common area?” 4.4.1 We asked the respondents who used the consultation website to tell us their views on providing two new London Overground stations through a closed question. As respondents who submitted responses via email did not directly answer this question, the following analysis relates only to these respondents who used the consultation website.

4.4.2 It was mandatory for respondents to answer this question.

4.4.3 Table 5 shows that, overall, 681 (79%) of respondents strongly supported the proposal to provide two new stations, with a further 130 (15%) expressing support.

4.4.4 29 (3%) of respondents strongly opposed the proposals, with a further 9 (1%) expressing opposition.

4.4.5 29 respondents (3%) neither supported nor opposed the proposals.

Table 5 - Summary of views on providing two new London Overground stations in the Old Oak area All responses Public Stakeholder

Strongly support 681 (79%) 675 (79%) 6 (86%) Support 130 (15%) 129 (15%) 1 (14%) Oppose 9 (1%) 9 (1%) 0 Strongly oppose 16 (2%) 16 (2%) 0 Neither support or 29 (3%) 29 (3%) 0 oppose Total 865 858 7

4.4.6 Proportionately, the level of support expressed by members of the public matched the levels of support overall, while proportionately more stakeholders (100%) were supportive of the proposal – 86% being strongly supportive and 14% supportive.

4.4.7 Figure 11 shows overall views on providing two new stations.

25

Figure 11 - Summary of overall support for two proposed London Overground stains in the Old Oak area

4.4.8 Figure 12 provides a breakdown of overall views, by respondent type. Residents were most supportive of the proposals; 94% either strongly supported or supported the proposals.

4.4.9 93% of people employed locally strongly supported or supported the proposals, with this figure at 91% for commuters. 85% of business owners strongly supported or supported the proposals.

26

Figure 12 - Support for two proposed London Overground stations by respondent type

Map of support for two new Overground stations 4.4.10 719 respondents who used the consultation website provided a postcode as part of their response.

4.4.11 This data has been used to create Figure 13, showing the location of respondents who strongly supported or supported two proposed London Overground stations close to the proposed scheme sites.

4.4.12 Support for the proposals was primarily located in West London, with clusters of support found at Acton, Acton Green, and close to the proposal sites at Old Oak Common.

4.4.13 There were also concentrated areas of support in Willesden.

27

Figure 13 - Support for two new London Overground stations: West 28 London Map of opposition to two new Overground stations 4.4.14 The postcode data provided was also used to create Figure 14, showing the location of respondents who opposed or strongly opposed the proposals for two new London Overground stations close to the proposed scheme sites.

4.4.15 Reflecting the relatively few respondents who opposed the proposals, opposition is markedly sparser than that showing support. While opposition is distributed throughout West London, a cluster of opposition can be identified within Old Oak in close proximity to the proposed Old Oak Common Lane station.

29

Figure 14 - Opposition to two new Overground stations at Old Oak Common 30 Summary of issues commonly raised in open responses 4.4.16 Of the 911 people who responded to this consultation in total, 349 of them (38%) provided a response in the open text box for further, general comments on the proposals. This figure includes responses received via the consultation website and email. Email responses were analysed and assigned to an open question depending on their content.

4.4.17 Responses were grouped by theme, and assigned to categories of “concern”, “supportive” “suggestion”.

4.4.18 For further, general comments, a total of 770 comments within 16 themes were generated.

4.4.19 Table 6 shows each theme that was generated, ordered by number of responses, and provides an overview of the nature of the comments that were made within each.

4.4.20 A brief commentary of the comments made within each theme is provided in section 4.4.5, and a detailed summary of all comments is available in Appendix A.

31 Table 6 - Issues commonly raised about two proposed London Overground stations for Old Oak Common Nature of comment Theme Total Supportive Concern Suggestion comments Impact of the proposals on the local community, jobs and housing 77 20 13 110 General support for the proposals 105 - - 105 Impact of the proposals on local public transport connections 70 8 15 93 Passenger interchange between Overground services and 32 11 48 91 HS2/Elizabeth line services at Old Oak Common station Designs and access arrangements for the proposed stations - 11 33 44 London Overground service provision 14 11 11 36 Environmental impacts of the proposals 3 19 12 34 An alternative proposal for London Overground services - - 31 31 Scheme cost and funding 3 16 10 29 Impact of the proposals on the local road network 5 13 9 27 Walking and cycling facilities at the new stations - 1 22 23 Project timescale - - 21 21 Station option preference 12 - 2 14 The consultation process - 5 2 7 General opposition to the proposals - 7 - 7 Comments out of the scope of the consultation - - - 98

32 Commentary of issues commonly raised in open question responses Impact of the proposals on the local community, jobs and housing

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

77 20 13 110

4.4.21 110 comments were made which related to the potential impact of the proposals on the local community and jobs. This theme captured comments made on housing, employment and social cohesion.

4.4.22 77 comments expressed positivity about the impact of the proposals on the local community, while 20 expressed concern over potentially negative impacts. 13 respondents made suggestions as to how the proposals might better serve the local community.

Support

4.4.23 The 77 positive comments expressed support for the proposals due to the potential benefits for the Old Oak area, such as regeneration, inward investment and the creation of new jobs.

4.4.24 41 of these comments specifically expressed support for the proposals due to the regeneration of Old Oak, with 14 comments expressing support for the proposals due to the investment that they would bring to the area. A further 13 respondents mentioned increased employment opportunities as a reason for supporting the proposals.

Concern

4.4.25 Conversely, 20 comments were made that raised concerns about the potentially negative impacts of the proposals for the local community. 12 respondents raised concerns about disruption for residents during construction, while two respondents expressed concern that the local community felt alienated by the proposals. One respondent felt that the proposals represented an attempt to destroy the existing local community

33 Suggestion

4.4.26 Of the 13 suggestions, the most commonly made recommendations related to housing, with five comments.

4.4.27 Two respondents suggested that the proposals should include affordable housing, two suggested ensuring that levels of housing included in the proposals should be sufficient to meet local needs, while a further respondent suggested that the proposals should include housing in general.

Generally supportive comment

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

105 - - 105

4.4.28 105 comments were made expressing general support for the proposals. 104 of these comments expressed very broad sentiments of support, such as “great idea!”, with 1 person commenting that the proposals represented a positive move for the United Kingdom.

Impact of the proposals on local public transport connections

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

70 8 15 93

4.4.29 93 comments were made on the potential impacts of the proposals on local public transport connections. This theme captured comments on public transport connections and provision in Old Oak Common, apart from London Overground, which was assigned a dedicated theme due to the nature of the proposals.

4.4.30 These comments comprised 70 supportive comments, 15 suggestions and eight expressions of concern.

Support

4.4.31 39 comments expressed support for the proposals as they believed that the two new stations would provide enhanced connectivity to and from the Old Oak area. A further 13 comments expressed support for any new transport provision in the area.

34 Suggestions

4.4.32 The most commonly raised suggestion was that the station should feature adequate bus connections.

Concern

4.4.33 Three comments expressed concern about attempting to incorporate the proposals into the local transport network. 2 comments suggested that the existing local transport network had not been considered, with a further respondent believing that the existing transport system will not be able to cope with the proposals if implemented.

Passenger interchange between London Overground services and Old Oak Common station

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

32 11 48 91

4.4.34 91 comments were made on passenger interchange between London Overground services and Old Oak Common Station, split between suggestions (48), support (32), and concern (11).

Suggestions

4.4.35 26 comments suggested that passenger interchange between London Overground and HS2/Elizabeth Line services should be made as convenient as possible. A further 5 respondents suggested that more information should be made available on the detailed plans for interchange.

Support

4.4.36 32 comments were made expressing support for the principle of providing interchange between London Overground services and Old Oak Common station

Concern

4.4.37 32 comments were made that expressed support for the principle of interchange between London Overground services and HS2/Elizabeth Line services.

4.4.38 Five respondents believed that the proposed stations at both Hythe Road and Old Oak Common Lane would be situated too far from the HS2/Elizabeth line stations to create a convenient interchange. A further five comments were made that levelled the same concern for the Hythe Road station specifically.

35 Designs and access arrangements for the proposed stations

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

- 11 33 44

4.4.39 44 comments were made on the design of, and access to the proposed stations at Hythe Road and Old Oak Common Lane, a theme which captured comments relating to the designs of the new stations, and passengers and vehicle access.

4.4.40 30 comments referred to station design and 14 comments referred to station access.

Station design

4.4.41 The most commonly raised issue regarding station design was the suggestion that the final designs incorporate greenspace/landscaping. Five comments were made suggesting that the station design should be aesthetically pleasing.

4.4.42 Conversely, five respondents opposed the indicative station designs, with two comments specifically stating that the indicative design appears ‘cheap’, and two that the designs are uninspiring.

Station access

4.4.43 The most commonly raised issue regarding station access was the suggestion that both stations feature access for buses to pick up and drop off passengers, as was mentioned in 5 comments. Two comments expressed the importance of cycle access to both stations.

Impact of the proposals on London Overground services

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

14 11 11 36

4.4.44 36 comments were made on the potential impacts of London Overground services. Comments on London Overground services were assigned a dedicated theme due to the nature of the consultation, in that views on London Overground services were specifically sought.

36 4.4.45 14 comments expressed support for the impact of the proposals on London Overground services, 11 expressed concern, and 11 suggestions were made as to the administration of London Overground services.

Support

4.4.46 The most commonly raised issue, with 9 comments, was support for the proposals due to the creation of new London Overground connections that would remove the need to travel into Central London to change services.

Suggestions

4.4.47 The most commonly made recommendation, with five comments, suggested that the frequency of London Overground services may need to be increased in order to accommodate the proposals.

Concern

4.4.48 11 comments of concern were made regarding London Overground services, including three that the proposed stations are too close to Willesden Junction and two which raised fears that the proposals may not be fully able to incorporate the proposed West London Orbital route.

Environmental impacts of the proposals

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

3 19 12 34

4.4.49 34 comments were made on the potential environmental impacts of the scheme.

4.4.50 19 of these comments expressed concern about potential environmental impacts, 12 made suggestions as to how to mitigate potentially negative environmental impacts, and three expressed support for the potentially positive environmental benefits of the proposals.

Concern

4.4.51 The most commonly raised issue of concern, mentioned in 5 comments, regarded the potentially negative environmental impacts of the proposals in general. Four further comments of concern were made regarding the impact of the proposals on local wildlife and their natural habitats. Three further comments raised concern over noise pollution during construction of the proposals.

37 Suggestions

4.4.52 4 comments suggested that the proposals should not encroach upon the boundaries of Wormwood Scrubs. A further 3 comments noted that the station designs should be ‘environmentally friendly’.

Support

4.4.53 Two comments expressed support for the proposals due to their potential to improve air quality in the local area, while one respondent lent their support due to the limited impact it would have on local historical buildings.

An alternative proposal for London Overground services

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

- - 31 31

4.4.54 31 comments provided suggestions outlining alternative proposals for London Overground services in Old Oak Common. This theme captured the recommendations of respondents who suggested that the proposals for two new London Overground stations were either inadequate or required recommendation, and offered alternative proposals.

Suggestions

4.4.55 The most commonly raised suggestion, with three comments, was that North Pole Road represents a better location for a new London Overground station than Hythe Road. A further two respondents suggested relocating the two stations as they were considered too close together.

4.4.56 Two comments were made recommending that Old Oak Common Lane should feature passive provision to allow for future stations on a revitalised Dudding Hill Line, and a further two suggested that the London Overground lines are rerouted to allow a more direct connection with HS2/Elizabeth Line services.

4.4.57 A full, detailed breakdown of each comment can be found in Appendix A.

38 Scheme cost and funding

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

3 16 10 29

4.4.58 29 comments were made on scheme cost and funding. This theme captured comments on funding streams, use of funds allocated to the proposals and costs relating to design and construction of the stations.

4.4.59 16 comments expressed concern over aspects of scheme costs and funding, 11 offered suggestions regarding the funding strategy, and 2 expressed support for investment in the scheme.

Concern

4.4.60 Of the 16 comments expressing concern, the main issue raised was that the money allocated to the scheme would be better spent elsewhere, such as the NHS. Four comments voiced fears that scheme funding may be threatened by Brexit, while a further two comments raised concerns about financial corruption.

Suggestion

4.4.61 3 comments specifically suggested that funding should instead be allocated to upgrade existing rail lines/rolling stock.

Support

4.4.62 2 comments expressed support for the proposed investment in the scheme.

Impact of the proposals on the local road network

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

5 13 9 27

4.4.63 27 comments were made on the potential impact of the proposals on the local road network. This theme captured comments on how local roads might be impacted by the proposals during the construction phase and also post- implementation.

39 4.4.64 13 comments expressed concern on the impact of the scheme, 9 comments suggested potential improvements or amendments to the road network to accommodate the proposals, and five expressed support for potentially positive impacts of the proposals.

Concern

4.4.65 The main concern, with 4 comments in total, regarded road closures. Two comments expressed concern over road closures during construction, and a further two expressed concern over road closures after implementation of the proposals.

4.4.66 3 comments expressed concern that the proposals could potentially cause an increase in traffic congestion locally due to an increase in car trips to the area.

Suggestions

4.4.67 The 9 suggestions largely comprised measures to mitigate potential traffic congestion following implementation of the proposals, with two respondents suggesting that a traffic management plan should be put in place after construction.

4.4.68 Five comments were made that expressed support for the proposals due to the potential transport mode shift from private car to rail.

Walking and cycling facilities at the new stations

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

- 1 22 23

4.4.69 23 comments were made in relation to walking and cycling facilities at the proposed new stations. This theme captured comments on walking and cycling infrastructure, routes, and cycle storage that might be provided as part of the two new stations.

4.4.70 22 comments comprised suggestions on how the proposals might accommodate walking and cycling, with 1 concern.

Suggestions

4.4.71 Of the suggestions, 11 comments were made suggested that the final designs should include high quality cycling infrastructure, with three suggesting that sufficient and safe cycle storage/parking should also be provided.

Three comments were made suggesting that walking routes to the stations should be provided.

40 Concern

4.4.72 One respondent expressed concern that the indicative designs appeared to create conflict between cyclists and buses.

Project timescales

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

- - 21 21

4.4.73 21 comments were made in relation to the timescale for implementing the proposals. This theme captured comments regarding the proposed date for starting construction, time taken for construction, and the date for completion of the stations.

4.4.74 All comments were suggestions.

4.4.75 The most commonly raised suggestion, with 11 comments, was that work to put the proposals in place should begin as soon as possible. Seven further comments suggested that the proposed project timescales should be reduced.

Station option preference

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

12 - 2 14

4.4.76 14 comments were made expressing a preference for a particular station. This theme captured comments expressing support for a particular station (i.e. Hythe Road and Old Oak Common Lane), or a particular station option as provided in the proposals, e.g. 1A or 1B.

4.4.77 12 comments expressed support and two provided suggestions.

Support

4.4.78 Seven comments were made expressing support for two stations to be constructed rather than one specifically. Three comments expressed support for the construction of two new stations.

41 The consultation process

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

- 5 2 7

4.4.79 7 comments were made on the consultation process. This theme captured comments which mentioned the materials, information and processes provided as part of the consultation.

4.4.80 Five comments expressed concern and two were suggestions.

Concern

4.4.81 Two of the comments specifically expressed concern that local residents were not adequately consulted during the consultation process. A further two raised concern that TfL did not provide alternative options for formative consultation.

General opposition to the proposals

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

- 7 - 7

4.4.82 7 comments were made expressing general opposition to the proposals. This theme captured any comments that included a general statement of opposition to the proposals.

4.4.83 Five of these comprised broad expressions of opposition, such as “I do not agree with your proposals”, while two expressed specific opposition to the creation of new stations and rolling stock.

42 Out of scope comments

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

- - - 98

4.4.84 98 comments were made that were deemed as out of the scope of the consultation on the proposals for two new London Overground stations at Old Oak.

4.4.85 Examples of these comments include standalone comments about HS2, such as “suggest immediate start to scoping of an eastward extension of HS2”, comments relating to potential new London Underground stations and comments on local cycling routes.

4.4.86 These comments have been recorded in full, sorted by theme and are included in Appendix A.

43 4.5 Summary of responses to a potential station and viaduct at Hythe Road

Summary of responses to closed question, “what are your views on the potential station and viaduct at Hythe Road? 4.5.1 We asked the respondents who used the consultation website to tell us their views on the potential station and viaduct at Hythe Road through a closed question. As respondents who submitted responses via email did not directly answer this question, the following analysis relates only to these respondents who used the consultation website.

4.5.2 861 respondents (99.5%) provided an answer (answering this question was not mandatory).

4.5.3 Table 7 shows that, overall, 509 (59%) of respondents strongly supported a potential new station and viaduct at Hythe Road, with a further 230 (27%) expressing support.

4.5.4 24 (3%) of respondents strongly opposed the proposals, with a further 12 (1%) expressing opposition.

4.5.5 86 respondents (10%) neither supported nor opposed the proposals, while 4 (0.5%) did not answer.

Table 7 - Summary of views on the potential station and viaduct at Hythe Road All responses Public Stakeholder

Strongly support 509 (59%) 504 (59%) 5 (71%) Support 230 (27%) 228 (27%) 2 (29%) Oppose 12 (1%) 12 (1%) 0 Strongly oppose 24 (3%) 24 (3%) 0 Neither support or 86 (10%) 86 (10%) 0 oppose Not answered 4 (0.5%) 4 (0.5%) 0 Total 865 (100%) 858 (100%) 7 (100%)

4.5.6 Proportionately, public support for a potential station and viaduct at Hythe Road matched support overall, while all stakeholders were supportive of the proposals - with 5 (71%) expressing strong support and 2 (29%) expressing support.

4.5.7 Figure 15 provides an overview of overall support for the proposed station and viaduct at Hythe Road.

44

Figure 15 - Views on a potential station and viaduct at Hythe Road

Map of support for Hythe Road 4.5.8 719 respondents who used the consultation website provided a postcode as part of their response.

4.5.9 This data has been used to create Figure 16, showing the location of respondents located close to the proposal sites who strongly supported or supported the potential station at Hythe Road.

4.5.10 The map shows that support is distributed throughout West London, with clusters of support within the Old Oak area and in East Acton.

45 Figure 16 - Support for a new Overground station and viaduct at Hythe road 46 Map of opposition to Hythe Road 4.5.11 The postcode data provided was also used to create Figure 17, showing the location of respondents who opposed or strongly opposed the potential station and viaduct at Hythe Road.

4.5.12 The map shows that opposition was distributed throughout areas located near to the proposed sites, with no clusters of opposition found.

47 Figure 17 - Opposition to a new station and viaduct at Hythe Road 48 Issues commonly raised in open responses 4.5.13 Of the 911 people who responded to this consultation, 247 (27%) provided a response in the open text box for comments on the potential station at Hythe Road. This figure includes responses received via the consultation website and via email. Email responses were analysed and assigned to an open question depending on their content.

4.5.14 Responses were grouped by theme, and assigned to categories of “concern”, “supportive” “suggestion”.

4.4.15 For Hythe Road, a total of 383 comments, within 14 themes, were generated.

4.5.15 Table 8 shows each theme that was generated, ordered by number of responses, and provides an overview of the nature of the comments that were made within each.

4.5.16 A detailed summary of all comments is available in Appendix A.

49 Table 8 - Issues commonly raised about a new London Overground station at Hythe Road Nature of comment Theme Total Supportive Concern Suggestion comments Passenger interchange between London Overground services at 11 44 18 73 Hythe Road and HS2/Elizabeth line services General support for the proposals 52 - - 52 Impact of the proposals on the local community, jobs and housing 24 13 4 43 Impact of the proposals on local public transport connections 23 4 9 36 Impact of the proposals on London Overground services 11 12 2 25 Designs and access arrangements for the proposed stations 1 5 17 23 An alternative proposal for London Overground services - - 23 23 Walking and cycling facilities at the new stations - - 19 19 Scheme cost and funding - 9 7 16 Environmental impacts of the proposals 3 6 6 15 Preferred station option 10 3 - 13 Impact of the proposals on the local road network 3 5 1 9 General opposition to the proposals - 5 - 5 Comments out of the scope of the consultation - - - 31

50

Commentary of issues commonly raised in open question responses

Passenger interchange between London Overground services and Old Oak Common station Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

11 44 18 73

4.5.17 73 comments were made on passenger interchange facilities between London Overground services at Hythe Road and the HS2/Elizabeth line station at Old Oak Common. This was the most commonly raised issue for the open question.

4.5.18 44 comments expressed concern about the proposed interchange, 18 were suggestions on the interchange facilities and 11 supported the interchange proposals.

Concern

4.5.19 37 comments expressed concern that the proposed distance between Hythe Road and HS2/Elizabeth line services was too great to provide effective interchange. A further four respondents were concerned that passengers could be required to leave the station building in order to change services.

Suggestions

4.5.20 The suggestions provided were primarily related to concerns; of the 18 provided, 7 suggested that interchange between services should be as convenient as possible. 5 comments suggested that more detailed information should be provided on the interchange proposals.

51 General support for proposals

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

52

4.5.21 52 comments were made expressing general support for the proposed station and viaduct at Hythe Road. 49 of these comments expressed very broad sentiments of support, such as “excellent idea”, “can’t wait for it to happen” and “looks fantastic”. 3 respondents commented that they had no specific objections to the proposals.

Impact of the proposals on the local community, jobs and housing

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

24 13 4 43

4.5.22 43 comments were made on the local community and jobs. This theme captured comments made on housing, employment and social cohesion.

4.5.23 24 comments expressed support for the positive impact of the proposed station and viaduct on the local community. 13 comments were made which expressed concerns on the impacts of the proposals on the local community, and four comments were made which provided suggestions as to how the proposals might be amended to better support the local community. they are not detrimental to the local community.

Support

4.5.24 The most common cause for support, with 19 comments, was due to their potential to provide regeneration for the Old Oak area, often described as “much needed” or “overdue”. Similarly, a further three comments were made which supported the proposals for Hythe Road due to the potential for increased employment opportunities in the area.

Concern

4.5.25 The most common concern was the fear that transforming a traditionally industrial part of London into a residential area is an unrealistic proposition. Similarly, two comments were made expressing concern that only the areas around the proposed stations would be regenerated and that the residents in other areas of Old Oak Common might not benefit from the proposals.

52 Additionally, two respondents were concerned that the proposals could potentially destroy the existing local community.

Impact of the proposals on local public transport connections

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

23 4 9 36

4.5.26 36 comments were made the potential impacts of the proposals on local public transport connections. This theme captured comments on public transport connections and provision in Old Oak Common, apart from London Overground, which was assigned a dedicated theme due to the nature of the proposals.

4.5.27 23 comments expressed support for the proposals due to a potentially positive impact on local transport connections. 12 comments made suggestions for how the improvements might improve local transport connections, and four comments expressed concern about potentially negative impacts of the proposals on local transport connections.

Support

4.5.28 The most common issue of support, with 11 comments, was that the proposals would provide enhanced access to employment and housing for residents of Old Oak. A further five respondents were supportive of the proposals due to the likelihood of improvements to local public transport connections.

Suggestions

4.5.29 The most common suggestion, with four comments, was that the proposals should include measures which enhance bus links to the Hythe Road area.

Concern

4.5.30 There were four topics of concern about local transport connections, which each featured one comment.

53 Impact of the proposals on London Overground services

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

11 12 2 25

4.5.31 25 comments were made relating specifically to London Overground services. Comments on London Overground services were assigned a dedicated theme due to the nature of the consultation, in that views on London Overground services were specifically sought.

4.5.32 12 comments expressed concern about the impact of the proposals for a station at Hythe Road on London Overground services and 11 comments expressed support for the proposals. Two comments provided suggestions relating to the administration of London Overground services.

Concern

4.5.33 The main issue of concern, with four comments, was that the capacity of existing London Overground rolling stock would not be able to cope with the growth in passenger demand that might be stimulated by a new station at Hythe Road. Two comments were also made expressing concern that the proximity of the new station would be too close to Willesden Junction, and that London Overground journey times between Willesden Junction and Shepherds Bush/Olympia could increase due to the proposals.

Support

4.5.34 11 supportive comments were made about the impact of the proposals on London Overground services. Five comments expressed support for the proposed station at Hythe Road due to potentially enhanced connections to the London Overground network from the Old Oak area. Similarly, three respondents supported the proposals as they would remove the need to travel to central London to make connections with other rail services.

Suggestions

4.5.35 Two comments provided suggestions for the administration of London Overground services; one example was the suggestion that TfL provide more information on where Hythe Road will appear on the London Overground network map.

54 Designs and access arrangements for the proposed stations

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

1 5 17 23

4.5.36 73 comments were made on the design of and access to the proposed station for Hythe Road. a theme which captured comments relating to the designs of the new stations, and passengers and vehicle access

4.5.37 17 comments related to station design and six to station access.

Hythe Road designs

4.5.38 Of the 17 comments on station design, 12 comprised suggestions on the final designs, four expressed concern about the indicative designs included in the consultation, and one expressed support for the indicative designs.

4.5.39 Of the suggestions, three respondents recommended that the station should not be named Hythe Road, but instead be renamed. Suggestions included Old Oak Common West and Acton Wells. A further three respondents commented that the station designs should include green space and/or landscaping, while three simply suggested that the station should be aesthetically pleasing.

Access to Hythe Road station

4.5.40 Of the 6 comments on station access, four comprised the suggestion that the station should be fully accessible to passengers with reduced mobility. One comment suggested that the station should include provision for a taxi rank, while a further comment raised concern that access to the station for cars and taxis would be constrained.

Alternative suggestions for London Overground services/infrastructure

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

- - 23 23

4.5.41 23 comments were made which provided an alternative suggestion for the planning and operation of London Overground services.

55 4.5.42 This theme captured the recommendations of respondents who suggested that the proposals for two new London Overground stations were either inadequate or required recommendation, and offered alternative proposals These comments were typically unique, and so a summary is provided here, and a full, detailed breakdown of each provided in Appendix A.

Suggestions

4.5.43 Five comments suggested that the proposed station at Hythe Road should be relocated to North Pole Road.

4.5.44 Two comments suggested that Hythe Road should be located further south, while a further two comments suggested that Hythe Road should be replaced by Westway Circus, which would comprise a station located beneath the Westway.

Walking and cycling facilities at the new stations

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

- - 19 19

4.5.45 19 comments were made on walking and cycling infrastructure, routes, and cycle storage that might be provided as part the new station at Hythe Road.

4.5.46 All 19 comments provided were suggestions

Suggestions

4.5.47 The most commonly raised suggestion, with nine comments, was that the proposals should feature high quality cycling infrastructure, that could be used by passengers accessing the station or incorporated into through-routes for local residents making cycling trips to other destinations.

4.5.48 Similarly, four respondents suggested that the proposals should prioritise walking and cycling access and through-routes over other transport modes. Three comments recommended that the station provide sufficient and secure cycle parking/storage for passengers.

56 Scheme cost and funding

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

- 9 7 16

4.5.49 16 comments were made on cost and funding for the proposed new station and viaduct at Hythe Road. This theme captured comments on funding streams, use of funds allocated to the proposals and costs relating to design and construction of the stations.

4.5.50 Nine comments expressed concern about the costs and funding of the proposals, and the remaining seven comments provided suggestions on how funding allocated to the proposals should be allocated or spent instead.

Concern

4.5.51 The main single issue of concern, with three comments, was potential financial corruption within the proposed funding streams for the scheme.

Suggestions

4.5.52 Regarding suggestions, five comments were made recommending that funding allocated to the proposals should be spent on redeveloping and renovating existing public transport infrastructure and rolling stock rather than providing new transport provision. Two respondents suggested that CarGiant should provide a financial contribution towards funding the proposals.

57 Environmental impacts of the proposals

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

3 6 6 15

4.5.53 15 comments were made on the potential environmental impacts of the proposals for a new station and viaduct at Hythe Road.

4.5.54 Six comments expressed concern about the potential negative environmental impacts of the proposals. A further six provided suggestions on how the proposals might mitigate against the negative environmental impacts, and three expressed support for the proposals due to their potentially beneficial environmental impact.

Concern

4.5.55 The main issue of concern, with two comments, was that any negative environmental impacts of the proposals would be overlooked and that they would be implemented without any mitigating measures being taken.

Suggestions

4.5.56 Of the six comments offering suggestions, four recommended that the station should be an environmentally friendly building.

Support

4.5.57 Three comments provided support for the proposals. Two of these offered conditional support on the grounds that Wormwood Scrubs would not be impacted upon by the scheme for Hythe Road.

58 Preferred station option

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

10 3 - 13

4.5.58 13 comments were made that related to the preferred station option of 1A or 1B for a new station at Hythe Road, as set out on the consultation website. This theme captured comments expressing support for a particular station (i.e. Hythe Road), or a particular station option as provided in the proposals, e.g. 1A or 1B.

Support

4.5.59 The most commonly raised topic of support was option 1B, a new station and viaduct to the north of the existing embankment. Five comments expressed support for this option.

Concern

4.5.60 Two respondents expressed concern that two stations seemed unnecessary and that one larger station could provide sufficient capacity, and a further two expressed specific support for the proposed new station at Old Oak Common Lane.

Impact of the proposals on the local road network

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

3 5 1 9

4.5.61 Nine comments were made on how the proposals for a new station and viaduct at Hythe Road might impact the local road network. This theme captured comments on how local roads might be impacted by the proposals during the construction phase and also post-implementation.

4.5.62 Five comments expressed concern about the proposals, three offered support and one suggestion was made.

59 Concern

4.5.63 Of the five concerned comments, the most commonly raised issue, with three comments, regarded a potential rise in road traffic in the area due to the implementation of the proposals. Similarly, two comments raised concerns about construction traffic operating in the area during the construction.

Support

4.5.64 Three supportive comments were made, with two respondents supporting the proposals due to the potential to stimulate transport mode shift from private vehicles to rail.

Suggestions

4.5.65 One suggestion was made; that road capacity around the proposed Hythe Road station should be increased in order to accommodate potential growth in vehicle traffic stimulated by the proposals.

Generally unsupportive comment

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

- 5 - 5

4.5.66 Five respondents left comments expressing general opposition to the proposals at Hythe Road, such as “I disagree with your plans”.

Comments out of the scope of the consultation

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

- - - 31

4.5.67 31 comments were made that were deemed as out of the scope of the consultation on a new station at Hythe Road.

4.5.68 Examples of these comments include standalone comments about HS2, such as “suggest immediate start to scoping of an eastward extension of HS2”, comments relating to potential new London Underground stations and comments on local cycling routes. These comments have been recorded in full, sorted by theme and are included in Appendix A.

60 4.6 Summary of responses to a potential station at Old Oak Common Lane

Summary of responses to the closed question: “what are your views on the potential station at Old Oak Common Lane?” 4.6.1 We asked the 865 respondents who used the consultation website to tell us their views on the potential station at Old Oak Common Lane through a closed question. As respondents who submitted responses via email did not directly answer this question, the following analysis relates only to these respondents who used the consultation website.

4.6.2 863 respondents (99.8%) provided an answer (this question was not mandatory).

4.6.3 Table 9 shows that, overall, 624 (72%) of respondents strongly supported a potential station at Old Oak Common Lane, with a further 176 (20%) expressing support.

4.6.4 21 (2%) of respondents strongly opposed the proposals, with a further 13 (2%) expressing opposition.

4.6.5 29 respondents (3%) neither supported nor opposed the proposals, while 2 (0.2%) did not answer.

Table 9 - Summary of views on a potential station at Old Oak Common Lane All responses Public Stakeholder

Strongly support 624 (72%) 619 (72%) 5 (71%) Support 176 (20%) 174 (20%) 2 (29%) Oppose 13 (2%) 13 (2%) 0 (0%) Strongly oppose 21 (2%) 21 (2%) 0 (0%) Neither support or 29 (3%) 29 (3%) 0 (0%) oppose Not answered 2 (0.2%) 2 (0.2%) 0 (0%) Total 865 (100%) 858 (100%) 7 (100%)

4.6.6 Proportionately, public support for a potential station at Old Oak Common Lane matched support overall, while all stakeholders were supportive of the proposals - 5 stakeholders (71%) strongly supported the proposals and 2 (29%) supported them.

4.6.7 Figure 18 provides an overview of overall support for the proposed station at Old Oak Common Lane.

61

Figure 18 - Views on a potential station at Old Oak Common Lane

Map of support for Old Oak Common Lane 4.6.8 719 respondents who used the consultation website provided a postcode as part of their response.

4.6.9 This data has been used to create Figure 19, showing the location of respondents who strongly supported or supported the potential station at Old Oak Common Lane.

4.6.10 The map shows that while support was dispersed throughout areas close to the proposed site at Old Oak Common Lane, clusters of supported existed to the south of the site, in Acton and East Acton.

62 Figure 19 - Support for a new Overground station at Old Oak Common Lane 63 Map of opposition to Old Oak Common Lane 4.6.11 The postcode data provided was also used to create Figure 20, showing the location of respondents who opposed or strongly opposed the potential station at Old Oak Common Lane.

4.6.12 Although overall opposition to the scheme is relatively low in comparison to support, it is clustered nearby the proposed site. This reflects several concerns that were raised by local residents regarding the potentially negative impact of the proposals on residents of nearby streets such as Midland Terrace, discussed in 4.6.7. These concerns were also raised by stakeholders and residential campaign groups, which are summarised at the conclusion of this chapter.

64 Figure 20 - Opposition to a new Overground station at Old Oak Common Lane 65 Issues commonly raised in open responses 4.6.13 Of the 911 people who responded to this consultation, 282 (31%) provided a response in the open text box for further, general comments about the potential station at Old Oak Common Lane. This figure includes responses received via the consultation website and email. Email responses were analysed and assigned to an open question depending on their content.

4.6.14 Responses were grouped by theme, and assigned to categories of “concern”, “supportive” “suggestion”.

4.6.15 For Hythe Road, a total of 581 comments, within 18 themes, were generated.

4.6.16 Table 10 shows each theme that was generated, ordered by number of responses, and provides an overview of the nature of the comments that were made within each.

4.6.17 A detailed summary of all comments is available in Appendix A.

66

Table 10 - Issues commonly raised about a new London Overground station at Old Oak Common Lane Nature of comment Theme Total Supportive Concern Suggestion comments Passenger interchange between London Overground services at Old Oak Common Lane 22 18 49 89 and HS2/Elizabeth Line services Comments on the link bridge to Victoria Road 43 13 31 87

General support for the proposals 61 - - 61 Concern about potentially negative impacts of the proposals on the local community, jobs - 52 - 52 and housing Designs and access arrangements for the proposed stations - 21 21 42

Impact of the proposals on local public transport connections 38 - 2 40

Support for potential benefits of proposals for the local community, jobs and housing 30 - 7 37 Walking and cycling facilities at the new station 1 3 26 30

An alternative proposal for London Overground services - - 27 27

Impact of the proposals on London Overground services 11 7 7 25 Scheme cost and funding 1 5 9 15

Project timescales 12 - 1 13

Preferred station option 12 - - 12 Environmental impacts of the proposals 3 9 12

General opposition to the proposals - 6 - 6

The consultation process - 1 3 4 Impact of the proposals on the local road network 1 1- - 2

Comments out of the scope of the consultation - - - 27

67 Commentary of issues commonly raised in open question responses Passenger interchange between London Overground services and Old Oak Common station

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

22 18 49 89

4.6.18 The most commonly raised issue for Old Oak Common Lane was passenger interchange facilities between London Overground services at Old Oak Common Lane and the proposed mainline station at Old Oak Common, with 89 comments.

4.6.19 49 suggestions were made on interchange quality, 22 supportive comments were made, and 18 comments were made expressing concern.

Suggestions

4.6.20 The most commonly made suggestion was that passenger interchange between services should be made as convenient as possible. Five comments elaborated on this by recommending that travellators be put in place to transport passengers between services. A further five respondents suggested that interchange facilities should be able to accommodate passengers with reduced mobility.

Support

4.6.21 The most commonly mentioned reason for supporting interchange facilities at Old Oak Common Lane, with 17 comments, was that the station offers a better option for interchange than Hythe Road. Three respondents commented that they support a station at Old Oak Common Lane as it offers convenient access to Victoria Road.

Concern

4.6.22 Of the 18 comments that expressed concern about interchange facilities, seven respondents were sceptical of the potential interchange facilities provided at Old Oak Common Lane and suggested that more detailed information should be provided on interchange plans so that they would be able to make a more informed decision on their support or opposition. Six comments expressed concern that interchange would take place out of the station building, and five that the distance between Old Oak Common Lane and the HS2/Elizabeth Line station at Old Oak Common would be too great to provide effective interchange.

68 Comments on the link bridge to Victoria Road

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

43 13 31 87

4.6.23 87 comments were made on the potential link bridge connecting Old Oak Common Lane station to Victoria Road.

4.6.24 43 comments were supportive, 31 suggestions were made, and 13 comments were made which expressed concern over the bridge.

Support

4.6.25 Of the supportive comments, 29 expressed general support for the bridge. Four respondents supported the bridge due to providing dedicated pedestrian access to the station, while a further three supported the bridge as they believed it would improve access to North Acton.

Suggestions

4.6.26 The most commonly raised suggestion, with seven comments, was that the bridge should be constructed at the same time as Old Oak Common Lane station.

4.6.27 Three comments suggested that the bridge should be accessible, or step free, for passengers with reduced mobility. A further three respondents suggested that the bridge should be designed so that it could allow access to any future stations on a revitalised Dudding Hill Line.

Concern

4.6.28 Of the 13 comments that expressed concern, the most common, with three comments, was that failure to construct the bridge at the same time as Old Oak Common Lane station could potentially cause disruption for residents of Midland Terrace, should a station entrance be placed there.

4.6.29 Two respondents expressed concern about the personal security of people using the bridge.

69 General support for the proposals

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

61 61

4.6.30 61 comments were made expressing general support for the proposed station at Old Oak Common Lane.

4.6.31 Examples of these comments include “great plan”, “very welcome” and “a no- brainer, do it”.

Concern about potentially negative impacts of the proposals on the local community, jobs and housing

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

- 52 - 52

4.6.32 52 comments were made expressing concern about the potentially negative impacts of the proposals on the local community, jobs and housing.

4.6.33 This theme captured comments of concern made on housing, employment and social cohesion. Due to the relatively high number of comments expressing concern compared to the other open questions on further, general comments and Hythe Road, a dedicated theme was created

Concern

4.6.34 A total of 11 separate comments were made outlining concerns over negative impacts to residents of Midland Terrace, relating to potential increases in noise, crime and resident parking. Similar concerns are also outlined in the campaign response from the Midland Terrace Residents Association, outlined below.

4.6.35 10 comments expressed concern about potential disruption for local people during construction of Old Oak Common Lane and suggested that this should be minimised.

4.6.36 Six respondents were concerned that the proposals would have a generally negative impact on existing residents, with a further five commenting that they were concerned that TfL had failed to listen to the concerns of local residents.

70 4.6.37 Four respondents were concerned that local residents would not receive compensation for any financial losses suffered as a result of the proposals.

Designs and access arrangements for the proposed stations

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

- 21 21 42

4.6.38 42 comments were made on the design of and access to Old Oak Common Lane. a theme which captured comments relating to the indicative designs of the proposed London Overground station at Old Oak Common Lane, and passengers and vehicle access.

Old Oak Common Lane designs

4.6.39 32 comments related to design, with 17 expressing concern, and 15 offering suggestions. The most commonly raised concern, with six comments was that the indicative station designs included in the consultation were not aesthetically pleasing. A further four comments expressed concern that the proposed height of the station would be too intrusive for the area.

4.6.40 The most commonly raised suggestion on station design was that it should be built sub-surface to reduce its visual impact on the local area. A further three respondents suggested that the station should feature greenery/landscaping.

Access to Old Oak Common Lane

4.6.41 10 comments were made on access, with 6 offering suggestions and four expressing concern.

4.6.42 The most commonly made suggestion for station access, with three comments, was that the station should be made accessible for passengers with reduced mobility.

4.6.43 Four respondents expressed concern about station access potentially being provided at Midland Terrace.

71 Impact of the proposals on local public transport connections

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

38 - 2 40

4.6.44 40 comments were made on local transport connections related to Old Oak Common Lane.

4.6.45 38 comments expressed support, with two respondents making suggestions and one comment indicating conditional support.

Support

4.6.46 The most commonly made supportive comment, with 20 comments, was that the proposals would provide enhanced transport connections in to and out of Old Oak Common. A further five comments were made expressing support for the enhanced connectivity for local workers specifically.

Suggestions

4.6.47 Two comments were made recommending that the station should feature good bus access, while one respondent gave conditional support for the proposals on the grounds that existing rail services would not be disrupted during construction.

Potentially beneficial impacts of proposals for the local community, jobs and housing

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

30 - 7 37

4.6.48 37 comments were made on the potential benefits of the proposals for local housing, employment and social cohesion.

4.6.49 This comprised 30 comments expressing support for the potential benefits for the local community, while 7 comments provide recommendations as to how the proposals might better serve local people

72 Support

4.6.50 27 respondents expressed support due to the potential for regeneration of the Old Oak area, while three comments suggested that the proposals would help to reduce severance within the community.

Suggestions

4.6.51 Two respondents suggested that Old Oak Common Lane should serve as a hub for the local community, while a further two recommended that retail outlets should be provided as part of the station.

Walking and cycling facilities at Old Oak Common Lane station

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

1 3 26 30

4.6.52 30 comments were made on walking and cycling infrastructure, routes, and cycle storage that might be provided as part of the new station at Old Oak Common Lane.

4.6.53 These comprised 26 suggestions, three expressions of concern, one expression of support.

Suggestions

4.6.54 The most commonly raised suggestion, with 14 comments, was that the final designs should feature high quality cycling infrastructure. A further eight respondents suggested that the proposals feature access for both pedestrians and cyclists.

Concerns and support

4.6.55 Each further expression of support, concern, and opposition received only one comment each and are included in full in Appendix A.

73 An alternative proposal for London Overground services

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

- - 27 27

4.6.56 Respondents provided 27 comments suggesting alternative infrastructure and operations proposals for London Overground services at Old Oak Common Lane.

4.6.57 This theme captured the recommendations of respondents who suggested that the proposals for two new London Overground stations were either inadequate or required recommendation, and offered alternative proposals These comments were typically unique, and so a summary is provided here, and a full, detailed breakdown of each provided in Appendix

Suggestions

4.6.58 The most commonly raised suggestion, with 9 comments, was that the station should be future proofed in order to facilitate connections to any stations provided on a revitalised Dudding Hill Line. A further two respondents suggested that Old Oak Common Lane should have turn-back facilities.

4.6.59 Further suggestions received only one comment each and are outlined in full in Appendix A.

Impact of the proposals on London Overground services

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

11 7 7 25

4.6.60 25 comments were made on London Overground services and administration. Comments on London Overground services were assigned a dedicated theme due to the nature of the consultation, in that views on London Overground services were specifically sought.

4.6.61 Comments comprised 11 expressions of support, seven expressions of concern, and seven suggestions. One respondent expressed conditional support.

74 Support

4.6.62 Eight comments expressed support for the proposals for Old Oak Common Lane due to its capacity to accommodate 8 car trains. Three respondents expressed support for the proposals due to the creation of new connections that would remove the need to travel to central London in order to change between services.

Concern

4.6.63 The most common concern, with two comments, was over existing levels of overcrowding on London Overground services, while a further two respondents were concerned that current London Overground rolling stock would be unable to cope with the growth in passenger demand.

Suggestions

4.6.64 Six suggestions were made which suggested that London Overground rolling stock should be upgraded in order to accommodate the proposals.

Scheme cost and funding

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

1 5 9 15

4.6.65 15 comments were made on scheme cost and funding for Old Oak Common Lane. The comments comprised eight suggestions, five expressions of concern, and one expression of support. This theme captured comments on funding streams, use of funds allocated to the proposals and costs relating to design and construction of the stations.

Suggestions

4.6.66 The most common suggestion, with three comments, was that the money allocated for funding the scheme should be spent on renovating/improving existing rail services. A further two suggested that scheme costs should not exceed the allocated budget.

Concern

4.6.67 Two respondents raised concern that Brexit could threaten the security of funding for the proposals.

75 Support

4.6.68 The expression of support was made due to Old Oak Common Lane potentially comprising a lower cost option compared to Hythe Road.

Project timescale

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

12 - 1 13

4.6.69 13 comments were made on the project timescale. These comprised 11 comments of support and two suggestions.

4.6.70 This theme captured comments regarding the proposed date for starting construction, time taken for construction, and the date for completion of the stations.

Support

4.6.71 11 comments expressed support for implementing the proposals as soon as possible. Each suggestion received only one comment each, and are outlined in Appendix A.

Environmental impacts of the proposals

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

- 3 9 12

4.6.72 12 comments were made on the environmental impacts related to a station at Old Oak Common Lane.

4.6.73 These comprised nine suggestions on how potential negative environmental impacts could be mitigated and three expressions of concern over potential negative environmental impacts.

Suggestions

4.6.74 The most commonly made suggestion, with six comments, was that the station building should be environmentally friendly.

76 Concern

4.6.75 Two respondents expressed concern that the proposals could encroach onto Wormwood Scrubs.

Preferred station option

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

12 - - 12

4.6.76 12 comments were made on station option preference,

4.6.77 This theme captured comments expressing support for a particular station (e.g.. Old Oak Common Lane), or a particular station option as provided in the proposals, e.g. 2A or 2B.

4.6.78 All comments expressed support for a particular station or option.

Support

4.6.79 Five respondents expressed preference for Option 2A as set out in the consultation literature.

4.6.80 Four comments were made specifically expressing support for one station at Old Oak Common Lane.

4.6.81 Three respondents expressed preference for Option 1A.

General opposition to the proposals

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

- 6 - 6

4.6.82 Six respondents provided comment expressing general opposition to the proposals for a new station at Old Oak Common Lane, such as “I do not agree with your proposals”.

77 The consultation process

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

- 1 3 4

4.6.83 Four comments were received on the consultation process. This theme captured comments which mentioned the materials, information and processes provided as part of the consultation.

4.6.84 Comments comprised three suggestions and one expression of concern; each comment is outlined in Appendix A.

Impact of the proposals on the local road network

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

1 1- - 2

4.6.85 Two comments were made on the potential impact of a new station at Old Oak Common Lane on the local road network. One comment expressed support for the new station due to potentially improved traffic flow in the local area. The other expressed concern about an increase once the proposals were implemented

Out of scope comments

Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total

- - - 27

4.6.86 24 comments were made that fell outside of the scope of the consultation on a new station at Old Oak Common Lane. These comments have been recorded in full, sorted by theme and are included in Appendix A

4.6.87 Examples of these comments include standalone comments about HS2, such as “suggest immediate start to scoping of an eastward extension of HS2”, potential new London Underground stations and local cycling routes.

78 Summary of responses to the closed question: “what are your views on a bridge linking Victoria Road to the station at Old Oak Common Lane?” 4.6.88 We asked the 865 respondents who used the consultation website to tell us their views on a potential bridge linking Victoria Road to the station at Old Oak Common Lane. As respondents who submitted responses via email did not directly answer this question, the following analysis relates only to these respondents who used the consultation website.

4.6.89 858 respondents (99%) provided an answer (this question was not mandatory).

4.6.90 Table 11 shows that, overall, 567 (66%) of respondents strongly supported a potential bridge, with a further 188 (22%) expressing support.

4.6.91 20 (2%) of respondents strongly opposed the proposals, with a further 14 (2%) expressing opposition.

4.6.92 69 respondents (8%) neither supported nor opposed the proposals, while 7 (1%) did not answer.

Table 11 - Views on a bridge linking Victoria Road to the station at Old Oak Common Lane No. responses %

Strongly support 567 66% Support 188 22% Oppose 14 2% Strongly oppose 20 2% Neither support or 69 8% oppose Not answered 7 1% Total 865 100%

4.6.93 Figure 21 provides an overview of overall support for a potential bridge linking Victoria Road to the station at Old Oak Common Lane.

79

Figure 21 - Views on a bridge linking Victoria Road to the station at Old Oak Common Lane

80 Summary of responses to the closed queston; “would you like to see the bridge link to Victoria Road as soon as possible?” 4.6.94 We asked the 865 respondents who used the consultation website to tell us their views on whether they would like to see the bridge link built as soon as possible. As respondents who submitted responses via email did not directly answer this question, the following analysis relates only to these respondents who used the consultation website.

4.6.95 861 respondents (99.5%) provided an answer (this question was not mandatory).

4.6.96 Table 12 shows that, overall, 627 (72%) of respondents would like to see the bridge built as soon as possible, while 27 (3%) did not. A further 29 3% suggested that the bridge should not be built at all.

4.6.97 50 respondents (5%) did not know whether they wanted the bridge to be built as soon as possible, while 45 (5%) were not sure. 83 (10%) had no opinion, while 4 (0.5%) did not provide an answer.

Table 12 - Views on whether the bridge link to Victoria Road should be built as soon as possible No. responses %

Yes 627 72% No 27 3% Don’t build the bridge at 29 3% all Don’t know 50 6% Not sure 45 5% No opinion 83 10% Not answered 4 0.5% Total 865 100%

4.6.98 Figure 22 provides an overview of overall support for a potential bridge linking Victoria Road to the station at Old Oak Common Lane.

81

Figure 22 - Views on whether the bridge link to Victoria Road should be built as soon as possible

82 4.7 Summary of stakeholder responses 4.7.1 17 stakeholder responses were received via email, including two campaign responses from groups representing the views of local residents. The stakeholder responses received came from:

 London boroughs  A member of parliament  Economic groups  Business groups  Resident and community groups  Transport/user groups  Other groups

4.7.2 Each response has been summarised and these are presented below. The two campaign responses received are summarised separately.

London Boroughs The London Borough of Brent

4.7.3 Strongly supported the proposal. Supported the provision of interchange between services at Old Oak.

4.7.4 Suggested Willesden Junction is key to maximising regeneration outcomes for the Wembley Opportunity Area.

4.7.5 Supported the proposed station and viaduct at Hythe Road. Opposed utilising the existing embankment due to potential service disruption leading to increased car usage.

4.7.6 Supported Option 1B.

4.7.7 Supported the proposed station at Old Oak Common Lane and the bridge link to Victoria Road. Called for immediate construction of the bridge.

4.7.8 Supported option 2B due to reduced journey times and minimal disruption to services during construction.

The London Borough of Ealing

4.7.9 Supported the proposal due to its support of sustainable travel choices and mode share.

4.7.10 Recognised that support for a station at Old Oak Common Lane depends on the provision of mitigation measures and station design.

83 4.7.11 Requested the proposed station entrance at Midland Terrace is removed from proposals due to the potential increase in disruption impacting upon residents.

4.7.12 Supported the construction of a Victoria Road link bridge. Called for the bridge height to be minimised and the design to reflect the surroundings. Suggested plants and greenery to be incorporated into the bridge design. Expressed concern that lifts to access the bridge may dissuade cycling. Suggested ramps may not be visually acceptable.

4.7.13 Requested that a station access via a tunnel/underpass is revisited. Suggested current analysis is inadequate and that a cost: benefit analysis of all options is conducted.

4.7.14 Suggested the station concourse should be constructed at ground level. Suggested that a tunnel would provide improved access to Victoria Road, and HS2 services, and would increase the availability of developable land.

4.7.15 Reiterated that the aesthetic design of the station is a priority. Suggested that construction impacts on residents should take precedence over TfL design guidelines.

4.7.16 Suggested that more detailed designs are provided to provide clarity for residents.

The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

4.7.17 Supported the proposals.

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

4.7.18 Expressed a belief that the proposed stations underpin future development of the Old Oak area. Highlighted that Hythe Road Station would increase accessibility of Kensington & Chelsea to future development. Welcomed safeguarding provision for a future third platform at Hythe Road.

4.7.19 Suggested the creation of an additional Westway Circus station beneath the Westway.

4.7.20 Expressed concern at the “placeholder” design for the proposed stations. Suggested that future appointment of recognised architects to provide future-proof designs of a high standard.

4.7.21 Expressed concern regarding wayfinding between Hythe Road station and Old Oak Common HS2/Crossrail station. Suggested vertical elements in the station design to signal their locations to passengers.

84 4.7.22 Suggested the addition of an East entrance to Hythe Road station to increase accessibility and distribute regeneration benefits. Expressed the expectation that the Hythe Road station design would be integrated with the Old Oak area bus network.

Members of Parliament Andy Slaughter M.P., Member of Parliament for Hammersmith

4.7.23 Mr Slaughter is the Member of Parliament for Hammersmith, with his constituency covering Old Oak Common and Wormwood Scrubs.

4.7.24 Suggested Old Oak and Royal Park redevelopment presents an opportunity for new jobs and affordable housing. Suggested that the delivery of proposals is dependent on co-ordination between all involved organisations. Suggested the needs of existing residents and businesses should be incorporated.

4.7.25 Supported the proposal in principle.

4.7.26 Expressed concern at the inadequate consideration of the interchange between the proposed London Overground stations and the proposed HS2/Elizabeth Line station. Suggested the design and placement of proposed stations be dependent on providing an effective interchange with the larger mainline station. Requested more detail on the operation of the interchange.

4.7.27 Called for a design contest for the proposed stations to produce results that echo the proposed HS2/Elizabeth Line station. Suggested the proposed stations should not be designed in isolation.

4.7.28 Supported the Wells House Road Residents’ Association’s consultation comments. Supported the St Quintin and Woodlands Neighbourhood Forum’s comments, particularly their proposal for a new Westway Circus station.

Business groups Old Oak Park Limited

4.7.29 Supported Option 1B due to the increased regeneration potential. Expressed belief that the viaduct is essential for the delivery of the masterplan which provides:

 £600m of additional value  670 more homes  A better and higher quality place  Faster delivery of new homes and jobs at OOP  More jobs and an enhanced commercial offer

85 Economic groups England’s Economic Heartland Strategic Alliance Strategic Transport Forum (STF)

4.7.30 Supported the Old Oak Common regeneration proposals due to the increased connectivity and improved interchange it would provide. 4.7.31 Suggested it is essential that the proposed stations improve connectivity along the Northampton to Old Oak Common axis. Suggested Old Oak Common provides a connection with East-West Rail infrastructure to link urban areas. Supported the addition of Chiltern rail services at Old Oak Common.

4.7.32 Suggested that a convenient service interchange at Old Oak Common is essential.

4.7.33 Welcomed the opportunity to work with TfL to meet the strategic needs of the Heartland region.

Residents and community groups The Hammersmith Society

4.7.34 Supported two new stations for Old Oak Common in principle and agreed with TfL’s summary of benefits.

4.7.35 Supported the proposal to replace existing embankment and construct a viaduct. Were concerned that the realignment of rail track around Hythe Road would result in loss of artist studio space.

4.7.36 Were disappointed that the consultation was carried out in isolation to the HS2/Elizabeth Line Crossrail station and expressed the importance of functionality and interchange between the respective services. Were concerned that the stations may be constructed at different levels.

4.7.37 Supported the concerns in campaign response from Wells House Residents’ Association.

4.7.38 Supported concerns raised by St Quintin and Woodlands Neighbourhood Forum and their calls for a new station on the West London Line at Westway Circus.

4.7.39 Were disappointed by the indicative station designs; suggested that Hythe Road should be light and airy, and Old Oak Common Lane must be related to the HS2/Elizabeth Line station. Suggested that the purpose of the proposed development above the station is unclear. Expressed concern about the absence of green space.

4.7.40 Expressed concern that the funding for the two new stations has yet to be secured and considered cost estimates to be very high. Suggested that the designs and consultation are therefore premature.

86

St Quintin & Woodlands Neighbourhood Forum

4.7.41 Expressed concern at the short consultation period and the lack of detail provided.

4.7.42 Expressed concern at the distance between the HS2 station and Hythe Road station and that Hythe Road station may be under-utilised if proposed redevelopment of the area falls through.

4.7.43 Expressed concern that the proposed station designs are obtrusive and over engineered.

4.7.44 Supported a new London Overground station underneath the Westway Circus. Supported new residential and commercial development at White City. Suggested TfL investigates this additional station in detail.

The Island Triangle Residents’ Association

4.7.45 Supported the proposals for two new stations in principle.

4.7.46 Concerned by the potential size/height of Old Oak Common Lane station; considered this to be out of keeping with surrounding residential streets and similar London Overground stations. Suggested that residents receive an explanation of the reasoning behind the size.

4.7.47 Concerned that an entrance at Midland Terrace would affect the quiet character of Shaftesbury Gardens and Midland Terrace. Concerned about the size of the link bridge.

4.7.48 Disappointed that the consultation fails to examine an option for an underpass as alternative to the link bridge. Suggested that alternatives are explored further.

Wesley Estate Residents

4.7.49 Submitted the response from Midland Terrace Residents (see the ‘Campaigns’ section below).

Transport/user groups Chiltern Railways

4.7.50 Supported the enhanced connectivity for the Old Oak area. Suggested the addition of a link to the Chiltern Mainline via the High Wycombe Single Line (HWSL).

87 4.7.51 Expressed concern the proposed realignment of the Great Western Mainline will prevent Chiltern Railways services accessing the area.

4.7.52 Suggested retaining HWSL access for Chiltern services at Old Oak Common to alleviate pressure on Marylebone station.

4.7.53 Requested recognition that talks have been held with HS2 Ltd, the Department for Transport, and Network Rail regarding HS2 and HWSL connection. Expressed desire that the proposals do not prevent this connection.

London TravelWatch

4.7.54 Supported two new London Overground stations in principle due to better connectivity and interchange in West London.

4.7.55 Supported option 2B for a bridge between Old Oak Common Lane and Victoria Road

4.7.56 Expressed concern that both London Overground stations lack accessibility to the HS2/Elizabeth Line station and that interchange will be difficult for passengers. Requested an assurance that passengers will be able to interchange “within station” from Old Oak Common Lane. Expressed concern that passengers will have to cross busy roads if the interchange is “out of station”.

4.7.57 Suggested that interchange must be efficient for passengers in order to create interchange hubs which encourage a shift from private car to rail.

4.7.58 Suggested that interchange should feature clear wayfinding and be accessible for all users.

4.7.59 Suggested that a convenient interchange would improve the business case for the station and suggest that this negates the need to cross any roads. Suggested that siting for the two London Overground stations and track layout is reconsidered so that better interchange can be achieved.

Other Canal and River Trust

4.7.60 Suggested the most direct route between the proposed stations would involve the canal towpath.

4.7.61 Suggested their Quietway along the Paddington arm of the Grand Union Canal can inform a similar route for Old Oak Common.

4.7.62 Suggested discussions between the Canal and Rivers Trust and TfL establish the impact on, and improvements to, the towpath.

88 Natural England

4.7.63 Highlighted in their submission their Discretionary Advice Service (DAS) for Developers.

89 4.8 Campaigns 4.8.1 There were two organised campaigns to this consultation which are described below.

Midland Terrace Residents

4.8.2 12 responses were received from this campaign

4.8.3 Supported two new London Overground stations in principle.

4.8.4 Suggested that Old Oak Common Lane indicative designs were unacceptable.

4.8.5 Concerned that residents were assured that a tunnel would be implemented at Old Oak Common Lane and considered the proposals for the bridge unacceptable due to size and placement. Suggested that by introducing a bridge, TfL are moving forward against the wishes of local residents and demanded that consultation on a bridge versus tunnel takes place.

4.8.6 Suggested that the planned pedestrian entrance on Midland Terrace is unacceptable due to the following:

 Plans for the entrance were not included in the consultation leaflet  Midland Terrace and Shaftesbury Gardens are quiet areas  Potential Compulsory Purchase Orders for resident parking bays on Midland Terrace and Shaftesbury Gardens  Impact on privacy of residents  An increase in crime  An increase in traffic and parked cars, loss of parking spaces and a danger for children who play on the street  Impact on residents who rely on car travel for work 4.8.7 Considered indicative station designs unacceptable:

 Suggested that indicative designs were unrealistic and that more detailed designs are provided  Suggested that pedestrian crossing on Old Oak Common Lane is not realistic alongside cars and buses  Suggested that size of station building is reduced  Suggested that station must be designed in a way that minimises noise pollution

90 4.8.8 Requested that TfL and Old Oak and the OPDC be more responsive to the needs of local people:

 Demanded a move to a consultation comparing bridge to tunnel  Suggested abandoning the proposed entrance at Midland Terrace  Suggested that the only acceptable location for a bridge is over the Dudding Hill Line  Suggested that TfL must provide exact details of station designs  Suggested reducing the size of the proposed station at Old Oak Common Lane

Wells House Road Residents Association

4.8.9 7 responses were received from this campaign.

4.8.10 Supported two new London Overground stations in principle. Supported viaduct option for Hythe Road.

4.8.11 Suggested that Old Oak Common Lane indicative designs were unacceptable.

4.8.12 Concerned that interchange between the two new stations and HS2/Crossrail may isolate Wells House Road as an island surrounded by disruption. Suggested that resources are provided to provide sound proofing and air conditioning for nearby homes.

4.8.13 Considered the consultation unacceptable as residents were assured that an underpass would be provided, the consultation was not held for long enough, and the consultation only provided one option.

4.8.14 Suggested that the link bridge is unacceptable and demanded a new consultation on bridge and tunnel options.

4.8.15 Suggested that an entrance/exit on to Midland Terrace would be catastrophic for the privacy of residents. Concerned that TfL may never be able to extend the bridge to Victoria Road. Suggested that station platform length and location must not impose on residents.

4.8.16 Suggested that the indicative designs are unrealistic and do not provide sufficient information on how interchange between stations/services would work in practice. Suggested more detailed information should be provided.

4.8.17 Suggested that station footprint/size is reduced and that local trees/foliage on Old Oak Common Lane are retained Suggested that the costs of the proposals are too high considering similar recent station builds.

4.8.18 Suggested that TfL and OPDC must be more sensitive to needs of residents and not prioritise OPDC ambitions over residents’ views.

91 5. Next steps

5.1 We are now reviewing comments made during the consultation. We will publish our response to issues raised document in spring 2018.

5.2 We will also update as to any changes to the proposals when we publish our response to issues raised.

92 Appendix A: Detailed analysis of open text comments

This appendix provides a detailed analysis of responses provided to each open question (significant themes and comments are identified and explored in Chapter 4).

Themes are ordered alphabetically, and given percentages for comments are from the total 911 consultation respondents.

93 Theme – Further, general Nature of % of total Total theme Comment Responses comments comment respondents responses The consultation process Concern Concern that local residents have not been adequately consulted 2 0.22% 7 Concern Concern that a failure to consult on alternative options to the proposals will be unlawful 1 0.11% Concern Concern that residents of flats on Midland Terrace have not been adequately consulted 1 0.11% Concern Concern that the proposals offered for consultation do not align with local development 1 0.11% principles Suggest Suggest that TfL provide alternative options for formative consultation 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that the consultation page should have included a cost benefit analysis of the 1 0.11% various options Environmental impacts of Concern Concern over potentially negative environmental impacts of proposals 5 0.55% 34 proposals Concern Concern over impact of proposals on local wildlife and habitats 4 0.44% Suggest Suggest that Wormwood Scrubs should be protected from proposals 4 0.44% Concern Concern about noise during construction phase 3 0.33% Concern Concern over impact of proposals on trees 3 0.33% Suggest Suggest that station is environmentally friendly 3 0.33% Concern Concern about poor air quality around proposed sites 2 0.22% Support Support proposals as they will improve air quality 2 0.22% Concern Concern about noise from the new rail lines 1 0.11% Concern Oppose regeneration and destruction of existing land 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that existing environmental problems need to be addressed 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that more trees are provided with stations to improve air quality locally 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that relevant agencies work together to maximise sustainability of the proposals 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that station buildings feature solar power 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that the proposals include charging points for electric vehicles 1 0.11% Support Support proposals due to limited impact on historic buildings 1 0.11% Generally supportive Support Generally supportive of proposals 104 11.42% 105 comment Support Support proposals as positive for the UK 1 0.11% Generally unsupportive Concern Generally unsupportive 5 0.55% 7 comment Concern Oppose creation of new stations and purchase of new rolling stock 2 0.22% Local community and jobs Concern Concern about disruption for local residents during construction phase 12 1.32% 27 concern

94 Theme – Further, general Nature of % of total Total theme Comment Responses comments comment respondents responses Concern Concern that the proposals have alienated the local community 2 0.22% Suggest Suggest that sufficient levels of new housing are included in the development 2 0.22% Suggest Suggest that the proposals must feature affordable housing 2 0.22% Concern Concern that the proposals may affect local living costs 2 0.22% Concern Concern that construction will negatively impact on local business 1 0.11% Concern Concern that residents will suffer financially as a result of the proposals 1 0.11% Concern Concern that the development is an attempt to destroy the local community 1 0.11% Concern Concern that there are no long term plans for community cohesion/support 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that construction does not take place during peak times 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that construction work does not take place at night 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that local residents are provided with detailed impact report on construction 1 0.11% Local community and jobs Support Support proposals due to regeneration of the Old Oak area 41 4.50% 83 support Support Support proposals as they facilitate investment and/or redevelopment plans for the Old Oak 14 1.54% area Support Support the scheme due to creation of employment opportunities 13 1.43% Support Conditional support given on basis of local community also supporting proposals 3 0.33% Suggest Suggest that the proposals must create a more cohesive community 3 0.33% Support Support the scheme due to creation of new homes 3 0.33% Support Conditional support on the grounds that existing residents are not displaced as a result of the 2 0.22% proposals Support Support creation of new housing in the Old Oak area 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that new housing accompanies the development 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that the proposals also include a hospital 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that the proposals include a new stadium for Queens Park Rangers 1 0.11% Local roads Support Support proposals due to potential mode shift from private car travel to rail 5 0.55% 27 Concern Concern that the proposals will cause increase traffic congestion locally 4 0.44% Suggest Suggest that traffic management plan is put in place post-construction 3 0.33% Concern Concern about road closures as a result of the proposals 2 0.22% Concern Concern about road closures during construction phase 2 0.22% Concern Concern that car travel and access to the stations will be constrained 1 0.11% Concern Concern that road traffic will be pushed into new areas as a result of the development 1 0.11%

95 Theme – Further, general Nature of % of total Total theme Comment Responses comments comment respondents responses Concern Concern that shortcomings in passenger interchange in the proposals will push demand from 1 0.11% rail to road Concern Concern that the proposals will cause increase in road journey times locally 1 0.11% Concern Concern that the proposals will increase congestion at junction of Wood Lane and Du Cane 1 0.11% Road Suggest Suggest providing improved road connections for north bound traffic to remove bottlenecks 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that additional road space is provided to accommodate any increase in vehicle 1 0.11% traffic due to proposals Suggest Suggest that any new roads in the area are routed through underground tunnels 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that further information is provided on planned road redesigns 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that roads in Old Oak area are upgraded 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that the Old Oak area needs to reduce reliance on private car travel 1 0.11% Local transport Support Support proposals due to enhanced connectivity to/from the Old Oak area 39 4.28% 93 connections Support Support any new local transport provision 13 1.43% Support Support enhanced connectivity to/from the Old Oak area by HS2 6 0.66% Suggest Suggest that the proposals must feature bus connections to the stations 5 0.55% Support Support proposals due to improved connections with Heathrow 3 0.33% Concern Concern that the proposals do not consider wider transport provision in the Old Oak area 2 0.22% Concern Concern that the new stations are unnecessary as existing transport connections are 2 0.22% sufficient Suggest Suggest that more information is provided on bus routes serving the new stations 2 0.22% Support Support proposals as they will reduce pressure on central London HS2 stations 2 0.22% Support Support proposals due to reductions in journey times 2 0.22% Suggest Suggest that the proposals incorporate a connection/interchange with Southern Railway 2 0.22% services to Milton Keynes Concern Concern that construction of the new stations will increase journey times on existing National 1 0.11% Rail lines Concern Concern that proposals are aimed at meeting local transport needs rather than wider London 1 0.11% transport goals Concern Concern that proposals do not adequately enhance connectivity locally 1 0.11% Concern Concern that the existing local transport network will not be able to cope with the proposals 1 0.11% Support Conditional support on the grounds that construction does not disrupt existing services 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that connectivity with wider transport network is crucial to success of the scheme 1 0.11%

96 Theme – Further, general Nature of % of total Total theme Comment Responses comments comment respondents responses Suggest Suggest that external station realm improvements are planned early to ensure Old Oak 1 0.11% Common's position as an orbital interchange Suggest Suggest that more information is provided on proposed bus routes serving the station 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that Old Oak Common Lane has potential to act as an orbital interchange 1 0.11% Suggest Support proposals due to enhanced connections to National Rail services 1 0.11% Suggest Support enhanced provision in Old Oak area to Willesden Junction and Shepherds Bush 1 0.11% Suggest Support proposals as they address local transport capacity issues 1 0.11% Suggest Support proposals due to enhanced connectivity between the Thames Valley and London 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that the proposals take a more long term approach to planning, forecasting for the 1 0.11% next 50-100 years Suggest Suggest that local and national transport bodies/organisations co-operate fully to achieve 1 0.11% improved connectivity Out of scope Alternative Suggest that the proposals should provide a connection to the Central Line 9 0.99% 98 proposal Alternative Suggest that the proposals should provide a connection to the Underground 7 0.77% proposal Overground Suggest that Willesden Junction is redeveloped 5 0.55% alternative proposal Overground Suggest creation of an Overground Station, Westway Circus, at the Westway 4 0.44% alternative proposal HS2 Concern that HS2 is a waste of money 3 0.33% Alternative Suggest a connection between the proposed stations and the Hounslow Loop 2 0.22% proposal Environmental Concern that bird box schemes are not fit for purpose due to removal of trees and food 2 0.22% impacts sources for birds HS2 Concern that HS2 is controversial 2 0.22% Local transport Concern that existing rail journey times are too slow 2 0.22% connections Local transport Suggest that proposals include improved connections to Hounslow 2 0.22% connections Overground Suggest that Willesden Junction is renovated 2 0.22% alternative proposal Old Oak Concern that proposals have been too heavily influenced by the OPDC 1 0.11% Common

97 Theme – Further, general Nature of % of total Total theme Comment Responses comments comment respondents responses Redevelopment strategy Old Oak Suggest that further information is provided on development masterplan 1 0.11% redevelopment Old Oak Suggest transport strategy should focus on meeting travel demand rather than regeneration 1 0.11% redevelopment goals Alternative Suggest creation of new Central Line station between North Acton and Hanger Lane 1 0.11% proposal Alternative Suggest implementing a twin track alignment from Northolt to Old Oak Common to allow 1 0.11% proposal access for Chiltern Railways services Alternative Suggest creating a rail link to Brentford via Kew 1 0.11% proposal Alternative Suggest creation of a dedicated Heathrow shuttle on the Elizabeth line 1 0.11% proposal Alternative Suggest focusing on re-planning the 112 bus route 1 0.11% proposal Alternative Suggest reinstating a regular Underground service to Olympia 1 0.11% proposal Overground Suggest the creation of a new east facing bay at Acton Mainline to increase service capacity 1 0.11% service provision on future Dudding Hill Line Alternative Suggest that access is provided to Park Royal 1 0.11% proposal Alternative Suggest that all five stations are constructed on top of each other (e.g. High Level, Low 1 0.11% proposal Level, Underground) Alternative Suggest that any new rail lines are built underground to minimise noise 1 0.11% proposal Alternative Suggest that National Rail services stop at Willesden Junction 1 0.11% proposal Alternative Suggest that plans should instead focus on the Victoria Line in north Kensington 1 0.11% proposal Alternative Suggest that platforms at Heathrow station feature improved multilingual wayfinding 1 0.11% proposal provision Alternative Suggest that proposals should provide a connection to the Piccadilly Line at Willesden 1 0.11% proposal Junction Alternative Suggest that the gas works in north Kensington is a more convenient location for a Crossrail 1 0.11% proposal station Alternative Suggest that the proposals should provide a connection to the Bakerloo Line 1 0.11% proposal Alternative Suggest operating more rail services from Heathrow to London 1 0.11%

98 Theme – Further, general Nature of % of total Total theme Comment Responses comments comment respondents responses proposal Consultation Appreciates being consulted 1 0.11% process Consultation Expresses intention to attend consultation meeting 1 0.11% process Environmental Concern over dust created by European Storage site at Friars 1 0.11% impacts HS2 Suggest immediate start to scoping of an eastward extension of HS2 1 0.11% HS2 Suggest providing four HS2 way-stations between Old Oak Common and Birmingham 1 0.11% HS2 Concern that HS2 construction will be disruptive for Londoners 1 0.11% HS2 Concern that HS2 may never be completed 1 0.11% HS2 Concern that money could be wasted on a connection with HS2, when it may never be 1 0.11% implemented HS2 Suggest that proposed HS2 station includes ticket booking facilities 1 0.11% HS2 Suggest that the Mayor should publicly oppose HS2 1 0.11% HS2 Support implementation of HS2 as soon as possible 1 0.11% Local transport Suggest that the Elizabeth Line is extended to Hertfordshire 1 0.11% connections Local transport Concern that local north and south travel options are currently limited for Central Line 1 0.11% connections passengers Local transport Suggest that access to airports is improved in general 1 0.11% connections Local transport Suggest that more information is provided on connection with Queens Park Rangers 1 0.11% connections Local transport Suggest that the proposals include a bus route from Acton Central 1 0.11% connections Overground Suggest constructing a further Overground station at Latimer Road 1 0.11% alternative proposal Overground Suggest constructing a station at the former Eurostar depot on North Pole Road 1 0.11% alternative proposal Overground Suggest reinstating Willesden Junction platforms removed in 1960s 1 0.11% alternative proposal Overground Suggest revitalising the Dudding Hill Line to provide even more possibilities for connections 1 0.11% alternative in Old Oak Common

99 Theme – Further, general Nature of % of total Total theme Comment Responses comments comment respondents responses proposal Overground Suggest that a station at North Pole Road would provide better access to White City 1 0.11% alternative proposal Overground Suggest that access is improved to Harrow Road side of Willesden Junction as it will 1 0.11% alternative constitute an important link proposal Overground Suggest that Portobello Road station is added to the Elizabeth Line 1 0.11% alternative proposal Overground Suggest that section of rail between the Acton Wells junctions should feature four tracks to 1 0.11% alternative increase service capacity and remove bottlenecks proposal Overground Suggest that direct services to Heathrow on the West London Line are restored 1 0.11% service provision Overground Concern that connectivity for residents in North Pole Road is not a priority 1 0.11% service provision Overground Suggest increasing Overground service frequency from Willesden Junction to Bromley 1 0.11% service provision South/ Orpington via South London line and West London line. Overground Suggest that more Overground services are implemented from Willesden Junction to 1 0.11% service provision Bromley/South Orpington on South London and West London lines Roads Concern about amount of traffic generated by recycling centre on Wood Lane 1 0.11% Walking and Concern that cycling near the proposal site is currently dangerous due to level of HGVs 1 0.11% cycling Walking and Suggest creation of a cycle route through Wormwood Scrubs 1 0.11% cycling Walking and Suggest creation of a Cycle Superhighway to Old Oak Common 1 0.11% cycling Walking and Suggest providing cycling routes to link schools to residences as part of wider development 1 0.11% cycling of local area Overground Suggest that the bridge link to Old Oak Common will more easily facilitate the construction of 1 0.11% alternative a new Overground station on the Dudding Hill Line proposal Unclear Unclear comment 1 0.11% comment Station design Suggest that all rail construction work should be completed before construction of residential 1 0.11% accommodation at HS2 station Alternative Suggest providing more routes between Heathrow and London 1 0.11% proposal

100 Theme – Further, general Nature of % of total Total theme Comment Responses comments comment respondents responses Alternative Suggest running joined services from Heathrow to London which split en route 1 0.11% proposal Overground alternative Suggest Suggest that North Pole Road is a better location for a new Overground station 3 0.33% 31 proposal Suggest Concern that Old Oak Common Lane Lane and Hythe Road stations are too close together; 2 0.22% reconsider locations Suggest Suggest that Old Oak Common Lane station features passive provision to allow for future 2 0.22% stations on potential lines such as Dudding Hill Suggest Suggest that proposals are amended to reroute existing Overground directly to the new 2 0.22% stations lines to provide a more direct connection with HS2 Suggest Suggest that feasibility work on orbital connections at Old Oak Common is carried out before 1 0.11% the proposals are frozen Suggest Suggest a curve to bring Clapham line trains between or to the north of the Crossrail trains, 1 0.11% so an additional curve can take them back to Brent Cross or Willesden Suggest Suggest creating a connection with West Coat Mainline at proposed Hythe Road Overground 1 0.11% station Suggest Suggest routeing trains from Richmond through new platforms at Willesden Junction if Hythe 1 0.11% Road Overground station is not constructed Suggest Suggest slewing the Richmond-Willesden line east to build new platforms above and at right 1 0.11% angles to the Great Western platforms Suggest Suggest that a connection between proposed Hythe Road station and West Coast Mainline 1 0.11% would create a good interchange point for Heathrow Suggest Suggest that a new branch of the West London Line from Clapham Junction would provide 1 0.11% better interchange with HS2/Elizabeth line than the proposals Suggest Suggest that Acton Mainline branch line is used as an alternative connection to and from 1 0.11% Crossrail/Great Western services Suggest Suggest that an alternative station at Mitre Bridge would provide better interchange with 1 0.11% HS2/Elizabeth Line than the proposals Suggest Suggest that North London line is routed over the top of the new HS2 station 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that proposed new rail lines should remove the need for trains to change tracks and 1 0.11% reduce journey times Suggest Suggest that the proposal should feature stations that are located further apart 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that the proposals provide a connection to the North London Line 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that the proposals should provide a connection to the Watford DC line 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that the two new Overground stations must not be termini for services 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that Watford DC line is upgraded to facilitate proposal 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest utilising Willesden Junction rather than constructing two new stations 1 0.11%

101 Theme – Further, general Nature of % of total Total theme Comment Responses comments comment respondents responses Suggest Suggest implementing a double-track rail link between HS2 station at Old Oak Common and 1 0.11% the West London Line north of Westway Circus Suggest Suggest implementing a 12-car platform deck over the present axis of the HS2 platforms at 1 0.11% Old Oak Common for existing rail services Suggest Suggest building a new rail chord joining the proposed Hythe Road and Old Oak Common 1 0.11% Lane station Suggest Suggest running services from Clapham Junction to Old Oak Common Lane, via Hythe Road 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that provision for a future rail spur from the south into the new HS2/Elizabeth Line 1 0.11% station needs to be considered before the design for that station is frozen Overground service Support Support proposals for creation of Overground connections that remove need for travel to 9 0.99% 36 provision Central London to change services Suggest Suggest that the frequency of Overground services should be increased to accommodate 5 0.55% proposals Concern Concern that the proposed stations are too close to Willesden Junction 3 0.33% Concern Concern that existing Overground services are overcrowded 2 0.22% Concern Concern that the proposals may not be able to fully incorporate the proposed West London 2 0.22% Orbital Route Suggest Suggest that capacity of Overground trains is increased to meet growth in passenger 2 0.22% demand due to new stations Support Support the proposals due to improved connections between Ealing Broadway and North 2 0.22% London Line Concern Concern that plans are too heavily influenced by attempting to minimise disruption during 1 0.11% construction Concern Concern that proposals will increase overcrowding on Overground Services 1 0.11% Support Support for the West London Orbital route 1 0.11% Concern Concern that the proposed stations do not adequately address gap in Overground provision 1 0.11% between Old Oak Common and Shepherds Bush Support Conditional support on the condition that plans for a station at Westway Circus are not 1 0.11% affected Suggest Suggest that more information is provided on proposal's impact on Willesden Traction 1 0.11% Maintenance Depot Suggest Suggest that Overground services extend beyond West Ealing to Willesden Junction 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that the capacity of Overground rolling stock should be enhanced in order to 1 0.11% accommodate the proposals Suggest Suggest that the proposals will necessitate increase in capacity for North London Line 1 0.11% Support Support proposals as interchange between Overground and Elizabeth Line will alleviate 1 0.11% overcrowding on west bound Underground services

102 Theme – Further, general Nature of % of total Total theme Comment Responses comments comment respondents responses Concern Concern that plans will not improve existing poor rail service 1 0.11% Passenger interchange Support Support the principle of interchange between Overground and HS2/Elizabeth Line 32 3.51% 91 facilities Suggest Suggest that interchange between lines/services must be made as convenient as possible 26 2.85% Concern Concern that both Overground stations will be too far from HS2/Elizabeth Line 5 0.55% Concern Concern that proposed Hythe Road station will be too far from HS2/Elizabeth Line to provide 5 0.55% effective interchange Suggest Suggest that more detailed information is provided on interchange between services for both 5 0.55% stations Suggest Suggest that good links are needed between the Overground and Bakerloo line/Underground 3 0.33% services Suggest Suggest that interchange between lines/services must be covered/sheltered from adverse 3 0.33% weather Suggest Suggest that passenger interchange is facilitated by travellators 3 0.33% Suggest Suggest that the station(s) are made accessible to people with mobility needs 3 0.33% Suggest Suggest that Willesden Junction provides a better option for an interchange hub between 2 0.22% Overground and HS2/Elizabeth Line Concern Oppose proposals on the grounds of inadequate interchange facilities 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that adequate wayfinding is provided 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that amenities/refreshments are provided 24 hours a day 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that any new stations are open 24 hours a day 1 0.11% Project timescale Suggest Suggest implementing proposals ASAP 11 1.21% 21 Suggest Suggest shorter timescale for completion 7 0.77% Suggest Suggest that more information is provided on proposal timescales 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that Old Oak Common Lane is built first 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that proposals should be implemented by the project deadline 1 0.11% Scheme cost and funding Concern Concern that money would be better spent elsewhere 6 0.66% 29 Concern Concern that Brexit threatens scheme funding 4 0.44% Suggest Suggest that funding should be used to upgrade existing stations/lines 3 0.33% Concern Concern about financial corruption influencing the proposals 2 0.22% Concern Concern that the proposals are influenced too heavily by keeping costs down 2 0.22% Support Support investment in proposals as scheme is crucial for London's development 1 0.11% Concern Concern that burden of funding the proposals will fall on local taxpayers 1 0.11%

103 Theme – Further, general Nature of % of total Total theme Comment Responses comments comment respondents responses Concern Concern that the proposals are a waste of money 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest selling the air rights for all stations included in the proposal 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that funding for the proposals is reallocated to upgrading Willesden Junction 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that funding is secured as soon as possible 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that housing developers in Old Oak Common Lane area contribute towards new 1 0.11% transport infrastructure in the area Suggest Suggest that money should be spent improving links with the north of England 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that money would be better spent in east London 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that project should be completed to budget 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that the proposals are funded by HS2 Ltd 1 0.11% Support Support plans as benefits to area outweigh financial cost of scheme 1 0.11% Station access Suggest Suggest that proposals feature bus access 5 0.55% 14 Suggest Suggest that cycle access to the stations is important 2 0.22% Suggest Suggest providing accessible access to the stations for people with reduced mobility 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that access to the stations by private vehicles is discouraged 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that pedestrian access to stations is given great consideration 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that proposals feature taxi access 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that proposals include large car parking facilities 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that station access is given great consideration 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that station features a short term car park for drop off/pick up 1 0.11% Station design Suggest Suggest that the plans incorporate greenspace/landscaping 7 0.77% 30 Concern Concern over proposed station design 5 0.55% Suggest Suggest a more aesthetically pleasing design 5 0.55% Suggest Suggest that station designs should be sympathetic to industrial heritage of the area 3 0.33% Concern Concern that station designs look cheap 2 0.22% Concern Concern that the station designs are uninspiring 2 0.22% Support Support proposed station design 2 0.22% Concern Concern that existing infrastructure site constrains the scope for construction in Old Oak 1 0.11% Common Support Conditional support for the scheme if implemented tastefully 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that more detailed station designs are provided 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that station designs also include sporting facilities 1 0.11%

104 Theme – Further, general Nature of % of total Total theme Comment Responses comments comment respondents responses Station preference Support Support two stations rather than one 7 0.77% 14 Support Support construction of both stations 3 0.33% Suggest Suggest constructing one station rather than two 2 0.22% Support Support for Old Oak Common Lane proposal 1 0.11% Support Support for creating as many new stations as possible 1 0.11% Walking and cycling Suggest Suggest that designs include high quality cycling infrastructure 11 1.21% 23 Suggest Suggest that the stations provide high quality cycling storage 3 0.33% Suggest Suggest that walking routes to the stations are provided 3 0.33% Concern Concern that planned cycling infrastructure potentially conflicts with bus lanes 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest implementing cycle hire at the proposal sites 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that cycling routes are key to the success of the regeneration of Old Oak/Park Royal 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that cycling routes will provide cost effective access to the stations 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that providing cycle routes will allow the station to become a community hub 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that an accessible walking route to Park Royal station would improve access to Old 1 0.11% Oak Common from North West London

105 Nature of % of total Total theme Theme – Hythe Road Comment Responses comment respondents responses

Environmental impacts Suggest Suggest that the station is environmentally friendly 4 0.44% 15 Concern Concern that negative environmental impacts of scheme will be overlooked 2 0.22% Support Conditional support: as long as Wormwood Scrubs / other local green areas will not be 2 0.22% negatively affected Concern Concern about noise impacts during construction 1 0.11% Concern Concern that a potential increase in road congestion created by the proposals will 1 0.11% reduce air quality in the area Concern Concern that plans will negatively impact local area 1 0.11% Concern Concern that Wormwood Scrubs green area will be negatively affected by the proposals 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that provision is made to provide nesting for local wildlife, e.g. bats and swifts 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that station features more trees to improve air quality 1 0.11% Support Support a station at Hythe Road station as local heritage would be preserved 1 0.11% Generally supportive comment Support Support for station at Hythe Road 49 5.38% 52 Support No specific objections to proposals 3 0.33% Generally unsupportive comment Concern General opposition to station at Hythe Road 5 0.55% 5 Local community and jobs Concern Concern that transformation of Old Oak to a residential area is unrealistic 5 0.55% 13 concern Concern Concern that proposals will destroy existing community 2 0.22% Concern Concern that the wider Old Oak area will not see regeneration 2 0.22% Concern Concern about disruption to local area during construction 1 0.11% Concern Concern about the fate of existing businesses on proposal site 1 0.11% Concern Concern that jobs will be lost as a result of the proposals 1 0.11% Concern Concern that planned location of Hythe Road station will only benefit more affluent 1 0.11% residents able to live in the new Old Oak Park development Local community and jobs Support Support proposals on condition that the proposals bring new jobs into the area 1 0.11% 2 conditional support Support Support proposals on the condition that they are beneficial for local residents 1 0.11% Local community and jobs Suggest Suggest that retail outlets are also provided in the development 3 0.33% 4 suggestion Suggest Suggest that the proposals include social housing 1 0.11% Local community and jobs Support Support scheme due to regeneration of Old Oak area 19 2.09% 24 support Support Support scheme due to potential creation of new jobs locally 3 0.33%

106 Nature of % of total Total theme Theme – Hythe Road Comment Responses comment respondents responses

Support Support the proposals because commuting will be easier for local residents 1 0.11% Support Support the proposals as they will improve personal security locally 1 0.11% Local transport connections Support Support Hythe Road station due to enhanced access to employment and housing 11 1.21% 36 Support Support proposals due to enhanced connectivity with public transport (general) 5 0.55% Suggest Suggest that the plans include improved bus links 4 0.44% Support Support Hythe Road station as it would improve bus access to the area 2 0.22% Support Support proposals due to enhanced connectivity between main line rail services 2 0.22% Suggest Suggest that Hythe Road features a connection to the potential Gatwick-Milton Keynes 1 0.11% line Suggest Suggest that Hythe Road features a connection with Chiltern Railways services 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that Hythe Road station features passive provision for a future connection with 1 0.11% Chiltern Railways services Concern Concern about reliability of existing rail services 1 0.11% Concern Concern that local transport network will not be able to support the proposals 1 0.11% Concern Concern that proposals do not provide adequate connectivity between modes and 1 0.11% services given the scale of the plans Concern Concern that structural integrity of road bridges on Scrubs Lane is not sufficient to 1 0.11% handle an increase in road traffic Suggest Suggest clarity is provided on plans for bus routes connecting the station 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that proposals should not reduce journey times for rail locally 1 0.11% Suggest Support Hythe Road station due to enhanced Overground access for North Kensington 1 0.11% residents Suggest Support Hythe Road station due to enhanced public transport links to the Scrub Lane 1 0.11% area Suggest Support proposals due to improved access to central London 1 0.11% London Overground alternative Suggest Suggest an alternative station location at North Pole Road 5 0.55% 23 proposal Suggest Suggest locating Hythe Road further south 2 0.22% Suggest Suggest that Hythe Road is replaced by a new Westway Circus station 2 0.22% Suggest Suggest all platforms at Hythe Road allow for train reversal in both directions 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest an alternative station location at Scrubs Lane to accommodate the Southern 1 0.11% Railway service to Milton Keynes Suggest Suggest an alternative station location at the embankment on Scrubs Lane 1 0.11%

107 Nature of % of total Total theme Theme – Hythe Road Comment Responses comment respondents responses

Suggest Suggest an alternative station location south of the junction between rail branches, 1 0.11% towards Wembley Central and Willesden Junction High Level Suggest Suggest building terminating platforms for trains to/from Clapham Junction alongside 1 0.11% Crossrail platforms Suggest Suggest connection from Clapham Junction to Great Western Old Oak Common, with 1 0.11% further loop to Willesden Junction or Cricklewood line Suggest Suggest creating a new branch of the North London Line to create an alternative station 1 0.11% west of proposed Hythe Road site Suggest Suggest creating an addition station on the West London Line at Imperial College West 1 0.11% Campus on Latimer Road Suggest Suggest Hythe Road features two platforms instead of three, to allow creation of passive 1 0.11% provision for Willesden Junction bound trains Suggest Suggest routing the West London Line under or over the Old Oak development 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that proposals provide a link to Acton Central 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that the proposals are amended to locate the proposed Hythe Road station 1 0.11% closer to the HS2/Elizabeth Line station Suggest Suggest that the proposed stations are merged to provide one station 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that the station should facilitate an extension of/interchange with the potential 1 0.11% Dudding Hill Line London Overground services Support Support proposals due to enhanced accessibility to Overground network 5 0.55% 25 Concern Concern that current Overground rolling stock will struggle to meet growth in passenger 4 0.44% demand created by proposals Support Support measures that improve orbital connections and reduce need to travel through 3 0.33% Central London Concern Concern that Hythe Road station is too close to Willesden Junction 2 0.22% Concern Concern that travel times from Willesden Junction to Clapham Junction and Shepherds 2 0.22% Bush/Olympia will increase Concern Concern over route due to gradient between Mitre Bridge Junction and Willesden 1 0.11% Junction High Level Concern Concern that the proposals do not integrate southern bound West London Line services 1 0.11% Concern Concern that the turn-back service at Hythe Road is of limited benefit to passengers 1 0.11% Concern Concern that there is enough Overground and Underground provision 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that further information is provided on where Hythe Road will appear on the 1 0.11% Overground map Suggest Suggest that interchange with West Coast Mainline should be considered 1 0.11%

108 Nature of % of total Total theme Theme – Hythe Road Comment Responses comment respondents responses

Support Support new turnback facilities that would be created by the proposals 1 0.11% Support Support proposals as they will allow more people to use the Overground to get around 1 0.11% London Support Support proposals to provide passive provision for future 8-car operation 1 0.11% Out of scope comments Irrelevant Irrelevant comment 5 0.55% 31 comment Rail services Concern that planned route misses opportunity to connect Milton Keynes and East 2 0.22% Croydon Rail services Suggest building an additional station at Westway Circus 2 0.22% Alternative Suggest considering relocating North Acton Underground Station to create an effective 1 0.11% proposal connection to the Central Line Alternative Suggest creating a smaller station that connects to the Central Line 1 0.11% proposal Alternative Suggest providing more 775m+ capability around the Old Oak area 1 0.11% proposal Alternative Suggest Shepherds Bush station is made more accessible 1 0.11% proposal Environmental Suggest restriction on trains carrying nuclear waste through the site 1 0.11% impact HS2 Concern that HS2 timetable will be liable to slipping, potentially affecting construction of 1 0.11% the mainline station at Old Oak Common Local Concern that details on the design of the wider area have not been forthcoming from Old 1 0.11% community Oak Park Development Company and jobs concern Local Suggest that the development includes a new stadium for Queens Park Rangers FC 1 0.11% community and jobs suggestion London Suggest creation of a "super station" where Clapham and Richmond trains diverge 1 0.11% Overground alternative proposal London Suggest redeveloping Willesden Junction 1 0.11% Overground alternative proposal

109 Nature of % of total Total theme Theme – Hythe Road Comment Responses comment respondents responses

London Suggest reinstating a station at St Quentin's Gardens 1 0.11% Overground alternative proposal London Suggest adopting Thameslink technology to allow up to 30 trains per hour to run on 1 0.11% Overground Overground lines and increase frequency/capacity on the line service provision Rail services Concern over existing levels of crowding 1 0.11% Rail services Concern over impact of proposals to freight services 1 0.11% Rail services Concern over impact to track maintenance 1 0.11% Rail services Concern that planned route misses opportunity to incorporate freight services 1 0.11% Rail services Suggest introduction of Hopper fares between TfL services 1 0.11% Rail services Suggest reintroducing regular Underground service for Olympia 1 0.11% Rail services Suggest that Southern Rail lines are routed through the station 1 0.11% Rail services Support the proposals due to improvements in local freight transportation 1 0.11% Roads Concern about existing traffic congestion in the area 1 0.11% Scheme cost Suggest that development income from Old Oak should be used to fund improvements 1 0.11% and funding at Shepherds Bush Underground Station Passenger interchange facilities Concern Concern that interchange between Overground and HS2/Elizabeth Line is too far 37 4.06% 44 concern Concern Concern that interchange between services will be out of station 4 0.44% Concern Concern regarding interchange with HS2 / Crossrail 3 0.33% Passenger interchange facilities Suggest Suggest that interchange must be as convenient as possible 7 0.77% 18 suggestion Suggest Suggest that more detailed information is provided on interchange plans 5 0.55% Suggest Suggest providing high quality wayfinding for passenger interchange 2 0.22% Suggest Suggest providing travellator access between stations 2 0.22% Suggest Suggest that refreshments are available 24/7 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that station is open 24/7 1 0.11% Passenger Interchange support Support Support principle of interchange between Overground services and HS2/Elizabeth Line 11 1.21% 11 Preferred station option Support Support option 1B, a new station and viaduct to north of existing embankment 5 0.55% 13 Concern Concern that two stations seems unnecessary 2 0.22%

110 Nature of % of total Total theme Theme – Hythe Road Comment Responses comment respondents responses

Support Prefers Old Oak Common Lane station 2 0.22% Concern Oppose construction of viaduct 1 0.11% Support Support Hythe Road station due to increased passenger capacity 1 0.11% Support Support option 1A, a new station on the existing embankment 1 0.11% Support Support stations at Hythe Road and Old Oak Common 1 0.11% Roads Concern Concern over increased local traffic levels as a consequence of development in the area 3 0.33% 9 Concern Concern over potential levels of construction traffic during station build 2 0.22% Support Support proposals due to potential to stimulate mode shift away from private car to rail 2 0.22% Suggest Suggest that road capacity is increased to deal with increase in traffic caused by 1 0.11% proposals Support Support maintaining permeability of Old Oak Common for vehicles following 1 0.11% implementation of proposals Scheme cost and funding Suggest Suggest spending money on redeveloping/renovating existing rail provision instead of 5 0.55% 16 this scheme Concern Concern about financial corruption within proposal funding streams 3 0.33% Concern Concern about financial viability of scheme 2 0.22% Concern Concern that funding allocated to scheme would better benefit other areas of London 2 0.22% Concern Concern that the proposals are too expensive 2 0.22% Suggest Suggest that CarGiant should contribute funding for the proposals 2 0.22% Station design and access Concern Concern that station design is not aesthetically pleasing 4 0.44% 23 Suggest Suggest that station is accessible for passengers with reduced mobility 4 0.44% Suggest Suggest renaming the station 3 0.33% Suggest Suggest that final design includes green space/landscaping 3 0.33% Suggest Suggest that station is aesthetically pleasing 3 0.33% Suggest Suggest that final station designs are sympathetic to existing area 2 0.22% Concern Concern that access for cars and taxis will be constrained 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest including provision for a taxi rank 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that more detailed information is provided on station designs 1 0.11% Support Support indicative station designs 1 0.11% Walking and Cycling Suggest Suggest that final design features high quality cycling infrastructure 9 0.99% 19 Suggest Suggest that the proposals prioritise provision for walking and cycling 4 0.44%

111 Nature of % of total Total theme Theme – Hythe Road Comment Responses comment respondents responses

Suggest Suggest that final proposals features sufficient cycle parking/storage 3 0.33% Suggest Suggest a cycling and walking link between station and canal 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that clarity is provided on plans for extending cycle hire scheme 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that more information is provided on whether proposals will impact the 1 0.11% footbridge into Hythe Road estate

112 Theme - Old Oak Common Nature of % of total Total theme Comment Responses Lane comment respondents responses

Consultation Process Suggest Suggest that TfL respond directly to questions 1 0.11% 4 Suggest Suggest further consultation is required 1 0.11% Concern Concern that TfL has not also consulted on alternative options/proposals 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that TfL produce alternative proposals for consultation 1 0.11% Environmental impacts of Suggest Suggest that the station building is environmentally friendly 6 0.66% 12 proposals Concern Concern that proposals will encroach onto Wormwood Scrubs 2 0.22% Concern Suggest that retaining green space around the proposal site is important for local people 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that retaining green space around the proposal site is important for local people 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that station features nesting/breeding facilities for local species such as bats and 1 0.11% swifts Suggest Suggest that the development respects the current environmental landscape 1 0.11% Generally suporrtive Support Support proposals for station at Old Oak Common Lane 61 6.70% 61 comment Generally unsupportive Concern Oppose proposals for station at Old Oak Common Lane 6 0.66% 6 comment Local community and jobs Concern Concern about disruption for residents during construction 10 1.10% 52 concern Concern Concern that the proposals will have a negative impact on existing residents 6 0.66% Concern Concern that the concerns of local people are not recognised 5 0.55% Concern Concern that local residents will not receive compensation for the impacts of the proposals 4 0.44% Concern Concern about increase in crime on Midland Terrace if station entrance is constructed there 3 0.33% Concern Concern about increase in noise on Midland Terrace if station entrance constructed there 3 0.33% Concern Concern over Compulsory Purchase Orders for local homes 3 0.33% Concern Concern that the proposals will damage the local community 3 0.33% Concern Concern over noise pollution affecting local residents if Old Oak Common Lane is built 2 0.22% Concern Concern that station operation will be disruptive for local residents 2 0.22% Concern Concern over compulsory purchase of homes in Midland Terrace and Shaftesbury Gardens 2 0.22% Concern Concern that the proposals will negatively affect local businesses 1 0.11% Concern Concern about increase in illegal parking on Midland Terrace if station entrance is constructed 1 0.11% there Concern Concern about increase in insurance costs for Midland Terrace residents 1 0.11% Concern Concern about increase in litter on Midland Terrace if station entrance constructed there 1 0.11%

113 Theme - Old Oak Common Nature of % of total Total theme Comment Responses Lane comment respondents responses

Concern Concern about loss of parking spaces for residents of Midland Terrace if proposals are 1 0.11% implemented Concern Concern about the Travelling Community occupying local land during construction 1 0.11% Concern Concern that plans are too intrusive and will be opposed by local residents 1 0.11% Concern Concern that transforming Old Oak Common from an industrial to residential area is unrealistic 1 0.11% Concern Concern that TfL have abandoned promises to local residents that an underpass would be the 1 0.11% preferred proposal option Local community and jobs Support Support proposals due to regeneration of Old Oak area 27 2.96% 37 support Support Support scheme for reducing community severance 3 0.33% Suggest Suggest that retail outlets are also provided as part of the station 2 0.22% Suggest Suggest that the new station should be a community hub 2 0.22% Suggest Suggest inviting former Old Oak Common staff to any opening ceremony and to provide 1 0.11% memories of the area Suggest Suggest that visitor accommodation (i.e. hotels) is provided as part of the station 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that local people's views count most and that they are consulted further 1 0.11% Local public transport Support Support Old Oak Common Lane Station due to enhanced connectivity into/out of Old Oak 20 2.20% 40 connections Common Support Support Old Oak Common Lane Station due to enhanced connections for local workers 5 0.55% Support Support Old Oak Common Lane station due to enhanced connections to local amenities 4 0.44% Suggest Suggest that the station features good bus links 2 0.22% Support Support Old Oak Common Lane station because it makes area more accessible by non-car 2 0.22% modes Support Support Old Oak Common Lane station due to potential reduction in crowding on other routes 2 0.22% Support Conditional support for station if rail services are not disrupted during construction 1 0.11% Support Support Old Oak Common Lane station due to improved access to Central Line 1 0.11% Support Support Old Oak Common Lane Station due to enhanced links between Acton and Shepherds 1 0.11% Bush Support Support station as it would provide a good link between Elizabeth Line and North Pole depot 1 0.11% Support Support Old Oak Common Lane Station due to enhanced links between Great Western 1 0.11% Railway services and south west London Alternative proposal for Suggest Suggest future proofing the station for potential connections to stations on a revitalised 9 0.99% 27 London Overground Dudding Hill Line Suggest Suggest that Old Oak Common Lane has a turn-back facility 2 0.22%

114 Theme - Old Oak Common Nature of % of total Total theme Comment Responses Lane comment respondents responses

Suggest Suggest that all station platforms allow for reversal in both directions 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest an alternative station on Dudding Hill Line at Victoria Road 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that the station is able to accommodate potential Hounslow-St Albans services 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that the station is able to accommodate potential Basingstoke to Stansted services 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest connection with North Acton and alternative names for local stations of Old Oak North, 1 0.11% East, South, and West Suggest Suggest rerouteing Overground lines directly to the HS2/Crossrail station at Old Oak Common 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest routes should bypass the Old Oak area, continuing to the East 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest routeing the West London Line under or over the Old Oak Common development 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that a rail bridge is created across Euston mainline with a chord joining the 1 0.11% Bakerloo/Overground route Suggest Suggest that Old Oak Station is moved further south to allow better connectivity between Old 1 0.11% Oak Common Lane and Victoria Road Suggest Suggest that rerouteing Overground directly to the Elizabeth Line station will reduce impact on 1 0.11% existing lines during construction Suggest Suggest that Richmond Line platforms are considered to be part of Old Oak Common station 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that Old Oak Common lane features four platforms 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that Old Oak Common Lane ultimately becomes a six platform station with two 1 0.11% platforms on the Dudding Hill line Suggest Suggest providing an alternative station at Acton Wells 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that Hythe Road and Old Oak Common Lane stations are combined and tracks re- 1 0.11% routed to Clapham Junction London Overground Support Support Old Oak Lane station due to capacity to accommodate 8 car trains 3 0.33% 25 services Support Support Old Oak Common Lane station due to creation of connections that remove need to 3 0.33% travel to central London Concern Concern over existing levels of overcrowding 2 0.22% Concern Concern that current Overground rolling stock will struggle to meet passenger demand created 2 0.22% by new station Suggest Suggest upgrading existing 378 rolling stock to accommodate proposals 2 0.22% Suggest Suggest upgrading rolling stock to 3 door carriages to accommodate proposals 2 0.22% Suggest Suggest upgrading rolling stock to 6 car trains to accommodate proposals 2 0.22% Support Support Old Oak Common Lane station due to reduced distance between North Acton and 2 0.22% Overground services

115 Theme - Old Oak Common Nature of % of total Total theme Comment Responses Lane comment respondents responses

Concern Concern that Old Oak Common Lane is too close to Willesden Junction 1 0.11% Concern Concern that Old Oak Common Lane and Hythe Road are too close 1 0.11% Support Conditional support on grounds that Overground services are not disrupted during construction 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest also increasing service frequency locally on Overground lines to accommodate 1 0.11% proposals Support Support enhanced Overground provision in the Old Oak area 1 0.11% Support Support Old Oak Common Lane station due to reduced distance between Willesden and Old 1 0.11% Oak Common Concern Concern that proposals appear to remove possibility for passive provision for the Dudding Hill 1 0.11% line Out of scope Alternative Suggest that the station should connect with the Central Line 4 0.44% 27 proposal Unclear Unclear response 3 0.33% response Alternative Suggest that the station provides better access to North Acton 2 0.22% proposal London Suggest creating a moving runway linking Willesden Junction to HS2/Crossrail 2 0.22% Overground alternative proposal London Suggest improving connections between Old Oak Common Lane and Willesden Junction 2 0.22% Overground alternative proposal Alternative Suggest an alternative Crossrail site at old gas works in Ladbroke Grove 1 0.11% proposal Alternative Suggest diverting the line into the old Eurostar depot 1 0.11% proposal Alternative Suggest dropping Elizabeth Line name 1 0.11% proposal Alternative Suggest improving connections to Piccadilly Line 1 0.11% proposal Alternative Suggest providing more Crossrail stations between Paddington and Acton Mainline 1 0.11% proposal Alternative Suggest that HS2 should terminate at Old Oak Common Lane 1 0.11% proposal Local Suggest that the Acton Main Line could provide an alternative connection between Crossrail 1 0.11%

116 Theme - Old Oak Common Nature of % of total Total theme Comment Responses Lane comment respondents responses

transport and Great Western Railway services connections Consultation Concern that consultation documents do not illustrate the Central Line 1 0.11% Process Consultation Concern that the existing freight loop line is shown on the maps 1 0.11% Process Local Suggest that a new football ground should be at the heart of the development 1 0.11% community and jobs support Local Suggest that more information is provided on connections to Queens Park Rangers 1 0.11% transport connections London Suggest that Old Oak Station is moved further south to allow passive interchange with Central 1 0.11% Overground Line alternative proposal London Suggest upgrading Willesden Junction 1 0.11% Overground alternative proposal HS2 Concern that HS2 is controversial 1 0.11% Passenger interchange Concern Concern about lack of detail on interchange between Overground and Elizabeth Line/HS2 7 0.77% 18 concern Concern Concern that interchange will be out of station 6 0.66% Concern Concern that the planned interchange between Old Oak Common Lane and HS2/Crossrail 5 0.55% station is too long Passenger interchange Suggest Suggest that interchange between lines must be as convenient as possible 31 3.40% 49 suggestion Suggest Suggest implementing a travellator interchange between services 5 0.55% Suggest Suggest that interchange must be accessible for passengers with reduced mobility 5 0.55% Suggest Suggest creating an interchange between North Acton Underground station and Old Oak 2 0.22% Common Lane Suggest Suggest building internal passenger bridge to link Old Oak Common Lane to HS2 / rail station 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that any passenger interchange serves the western end of HS2 and Elizabeth lines 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that station should be open 24/7 and provide refreshments 1 0.11%

117 Theme - Old Oak Common Nature of % of total Total theme Comment Responses Lane comment respondents responses

Suggest Suggest that the interchange features high quality wayfinding 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that any road crossings in station interchange should be controlled by traffic signals 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that a pedestrian link between Hythe Road and Old Oak Common lane is created 1 0.11% Passenger interchange Support Support Old Oak Common as it provides better option than Hythe Road for interchange with 17 1.87% 22 support HS2 and Elizabeth Line Support Support Old Oak Common Lane Station due to proximity to Victoria road 3 0.33% Support Support principle of interchange between Overground and HS2 2 0.22% Project timescale Support Support construction of Old Oak Common Lane station as soon as possible 11 1.21% 13 Suggest Suggest that station is opened in 2021 at the latest 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that the project should be completed to schedule 1 0.11% Local roads Concern Concern over increased traffic levels due to implementation of proposals 1 0.11% 1 Support Support Old Oak Common Lane station as traffic flow will improve in local area 1 0.11% Scheme cost and funding Concern Concern that Brexit threatens security of funding for proposals 3 0.33% 15 Suggest Suggest spending money on redeveloping/renovating existing rail provision 2 0.22% Suggest Suggest that the construction should not exceed budget 2 0.22% Concern Concern that construction of Old Oak Common Lane station will be a waste of money if HS2 1 0.11% not completed Concern Concern that money could be spent more effectively in East London 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest downgrading Hythe Road proposals to ensure that Old Oak Common Lane is 1 0.11% completed Suggest Suggest that funding conditions should not influence construction stages/timescales 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that local authorities fund the proposals using s106 levies 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that most cost effective, rather than most time effective, option should be chosen 1 0.11% Suggest Support Old Oak Common station over Hythe Road due to lower cost 1 0.11% Concern Concern that the proposals are a TfL vanity project 1 0.11% Station access Concern Concern about station access being provided at Midland Terrace 4 0.44% 10 Suggest Suggest that disabled (i.e. step-free) access is provided to the station 3 0.33% Suggest Suggest that more information is provided on how different transport modes can access the 1 0.11% station Suggest Suggest that the Old Oak Common Lane and HS2/Crossrail stations should be named 1 0.11% differently to help satnav users Suggest Suggest that the station features adequate car parking 1 0.11%

118 Theme - Old Oak Common Nature of % of total Total theme Comment Responses Lane comment respondents responses

Station design Concern Concern that the station design is not aesthetically pleasing 6 0.66% 32 Concern Concern that proposed height of station is too intrusive 4 0.44% Suggest Suggest building the station sub-surface 3 0.33% Concern Concern over visual impact of station 3 0.33% Suggest Suggest that the station design features greenery/landscaping 3 0.33% Concern Concern that proposed station design is not sympathetic to local surroundings 2 0.22% Suggest Suggest that designs should be sympathetic to local area 2 0.22% Suggest Suggest that Old Oak Common Lane Overground station is renamed Acton Wells 2 0.22% Suggest Suggest that station design should be aesthetically pleasing 2 0.22% Concern Concern that there is not enough space for station to be constructed 1 0.11% Concern Concern that station design is multi-level, rather than single level 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest calling station Old Oak Common West 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest preserving views of the canal after construction 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that station street frontage is made "active" to enhance the urban realm 1 0.11% Station option preference Support Preference for option 2A 5 0.55% 12 Support Prefers one station at Old Oak Lane 4 0.44% Support Preference for option 2B 3 0.33% Victoria Road bridgeconcern Concern Concern that failure to provide bridge at time of station opening will cause disruption for 3 0.33% 13 residents on Midland Terrace Concern Concern about personal security of bridge users 2 0.22% Concern Concern that the bridge will be unsightly 1 0.11% Concern Concern over structural integrity of the potential bridge 1 0.11% Concern Concern that a bridge is not needed to connect Victoria Road to Old Oak Common Lane 1 0.11% Concern Concern that bridge will be unsuitable for cyclists 1 0.11% Concern Concern that failure to provide the bridge at time of station opening will cause disruption for 1 0.11% residents of Shaftesbury Gardens Concern Concern that there is not sufficient demand to justify construction of the bridge 1 0.11% Concern Concern that there will not be public access to the bridge (i.e. only accessible by passengers) 1 0.11% Concern Concern that the bridge is unviable as there will be low demand for use 1 0.11% Comments on Victoria Road Suggest Suggest that the bridge is built as part of the development, not later 7 0.77% 30 suggestion Suggest Suggest that the bridge must be accessible, i.e. step free 3 0.33%

119 Theme - Old Oak Common Nature of % of total Total theme Comment Responses Lane comment respondents responses

Suggest Suggest that the bridge should link with the potential West London orbital route on Dudding Hill 3 0.33% Line Suggest Suggest providing more information on design and dimensions of bridge 2 0.22% Suggest Suggest that the bridge should not require cyclists to dismount 2 0.22% Suggest Suggest that bridge is future proofed to serve potential new developments 2 0.22% Suggest Suggest that bridge design and placement should consider privacy of local residents 2 0.22% Suggest Suggest that construction of Old Oak Common Lane station is prioritised over construction of 1 0.11% the bridge Suggest Suggest building the bridge after the station is completed 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest constructing a tunnel to link Victoria Road and Old Oak Common Lane 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that clarification is provided on access to Old Oak Common Lane from Midland 1 0.11% Terrace Suggest Suggest that construction of the bridge is accompanied by a rebuild of North Acton Station 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that the bridge connects Victoria Road, Old Oak Common Lane Station, and 1 0.11% Wormwood Scrubs Suggest Suggest that the bridge is constructed further away from residential areas than planned 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that the design of the bridge should be fun 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that the bridge also links to North Acton station 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest that the design of the bridge accounts for providing access to a potential station at 1 0.11% Victoria Road on the Dudding Hill line Victoria Road bridge Support Support of bridge 29 3.18% 43 support Support Support bridge as it will provide good pedestrian access to the station 4 0.44% Support Support bridge as access to North Acton will improve 3 0.33% Support Support bridge as access to local bus routes will improve 2 0.22% Support Conditional support for bridge on condition that it provides a cycle link to the station 1 0.11% Support Conditional support for the bridge on the grounds that it is not built to meet lowest costs 1 0.11% possible Support Support Bridge being built as soon as possible 1 0.11% Support Support bridge as it provides access to the station from Park Royal 1 0.11% Support Support bridge as it provides greater accessibility to local area for residents of Wells House 1 0.11% Road Walking and cycling Suggest Suggest that final design features high quality cycling routes infrastructure 14 1.54% 30 Suggest Suggest that plans prioritise walking and cycling access 8 0.88%

120 Theme - Old Oak Common Nature of % of total Total theme Comment Responses Lane comment respondents responses

Suggest Suggest that final design features more cycle parking/storage 3 0.33% Concern Concern that the proposal images show that buses will block cycle lanes 1 0.11% Concern Concern that local pedestrian routes may be affected because of site works 1 0.11% Concern Oppose shared space for pedestrians and cyclists 1 0.11% Suggest Suggest a pedestrian and cycling route should be provided linking station with Grand Union 1 0.11% Canal Support Support scheme for potential road safety improvements for pedestrians 1 0.11%

121 Appendix B: Consultation questions

Questions about our proposals

Q1: What are your views on providing two new London Overground stations in the Old Oak Common area? Strongly support Support Neither support or oppose Oppose Strongly oppose

Just considering the station at Hythe Road

Q2: What are your views on the potential station and viaduct at this location? Strongly support Support Neither support or oppose Oppose Strongly oppose

Q3: Do you have any comments specific to the Hythe Road station?

Just considering the station at Old Oak Common Lane

Q4: What are your views on the potential station at this location? Strongly support Support Neither support or oppose Oppose Strongly oppose

Q5: What are your views on a bridge linking Victoria Road to the station? Strongly support Support Neither support or oppose Oppose Strongly oppose

Q6: The bridge could be built in stages depending on the funding for the project, would you like to see the bridge link to Victoria Road as soon as possible? Yes No Don’t build the bridge at all Don’t know Not sure No opinion

Q7: Do you have any comments specific to the Old Oak Common Lane station?

Q8: Do you have any further, general comments about the scheme?

Questions about the respondent

Privacy notice:

Transport for London (TfL) will use the information you supply in response to this consultation only for the purpose of assessing opinions for this consultation. Responses may be made publicly available, but personal details will be kept

122 confidential. You do not have to provide any personal information, but this information will help TfL to understand the range of responses, and to contact you about this consultation. For example, responses may be analysed by postcode areas to identify local issues.

PLEASE COMPLETE BELOW IN CAPITALS

Q9: Name ______Q10: Email ______Q11: Post code ______Q12: Are you (please tick all boxes that apply):

A local business  A local resident   Employed locally owner A visitor to the A commuter to Not local but interested in the    area the area scheme

Other (please specify)

______

Q13: If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group, please provide us with the name: ______

Q14: How did you hear about this consultation? (please tick one box - the main way by which you heard):

Received a leaflet  Received an email from TfL   Social media from TfL Read about it in the  Saw it on the TfL website  press Other (please  specify)______Equality Monitoring Form

Gender

Are you:

123 □ Male □ Female □ Trans Man □ Trans Woman

□ Gender Neutral □ Prefer not to say

Ethnicity Please tick one box from the list below which best describes the ethnic group to which you belong:

White Mixed/Multiple Ethnic Group

□ English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern □ White and Black Caribbean

Irish/British

□ Irish □ White and Black African

□ Gypsy or Irish Traveller □ White and Asian

□ Other White □ Other Mixed

Asian/Asian British Black/African/Caribbean/Black British

□ Indian □ African

□ Pakistani □ Caribbean

□ Bangladeshi □ Other Black

□ Chinese Prefer not to say

□ Other Asian □ Prefer not to say

Other Ethnic Group

□ Arab □ Sikh

124 □ Kurdish □ Turkish

□ Latin American □ Any other background

Disability The Equality Act 2010 defines a disabled person as someone with a 'physical or mental impairment’ which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his/her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

Do you consider yourself to have a disability, as defined by the Equality Act?

□ Yes □ No □ Prefer not to say

Faith What, if any, is your faith? The categories for faith, listed below are taken from the 2001 Census. If you feel that your faith is not represented, please detail in the ‘other’ box. Please tick one box from the list below:

□ Buddhist □ Jewish □ Any other religion

□ Christian □ Muslim □ No religion

□ Hindu □ Sikh □ Prefer not to say

Other (please specify ______

Sexual Orientation Please tick the appropriate box. Are you a (please tick as many as apply):

□ Heterosexual □ Bisexual □ Gay Man

125 □ Lesbian □ Other □ Prefer not to say

126 Appendix C: Consultation leaflet

127

128

129

130

Map of consultation area

131 Appendix D: Stakeholder list

Below is the full list of stakeholders we contacted regarding the consultation.

London Boroughs

London Borough of Brent Ward Councillors, Head of Transport policy, Chief Executive and Head of Transport Strategy. London Borough of Camden Head of Transport Strategy London Borough of Croydon Head of Strategic Transport London Borough of Ealing Ward Councillors, Chief Executive and Transport Projects and Policy Manager London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Ward Councillors, Chief Executive, Director of Transportation and Highways, Head of Transport Planning and Director of Regeneration, Planning and Housing. London Borough of Hounslow Head of Traffic and Transport London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Assistant Director - Environment and Community Service Planning and Transport London Borough of Wandsworth Head of Forward Planning and Transport Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Chief Transport Policy Officer

Members of Parliament

Emma Dent Coad MP, Kensington Rupa Huq MP, Ealing Central and Acton Andy Slaughter, MP for Hammersmith Dawn Butler, MP, Brent Central Tulip Siddiq, MP Hampstead and Kilburn

London Assembly Members

Dr Onkar Sahota AM, Ealing and Hillingdon Navin Shah AM, Brent and Harrow Tony Devenish AM, Hammersmith & Fulham, Kensington & Chelsea and City of Westminster Tom Copley AM, Keith Prince AM,

132 Caroline Pidgeon AM, Florence Eshalomi AM, David Kurten AM, Joanne McCartney AM, Steve O'Connell AM, Caroline Russell AM, Shaun Bailey AM, Nicky Gavron AM, Andrew Boff AM,

Business Groups & Local Business

Park Royal Business Group West London Alliance

West London Business Group London First

Federation of Small Businesses Agility Trains

Ballymore Group Camden Town Unlimited

Car Giant / London & Regional GSK

Heathrow Airport Ltd Imperial College

London Chamber of Commerce and Industry London United Busways

Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College

Nadi Park Royal The Collective

Hammersmith Hospital Acton Lodge Guest House

Westfield Management Company SEGRO

Madame Gautier Cookery School

Residents & Community Groups

Bishop of Willesden Corner Nine Arts Project

Darwin Court Residents’ and Leaseholders Association

East Acton Golf Links Residents’ Association Dromer's Wells

Friends of Wormwood Scrubs Friern Village Residents Association

Gloucester Avenue Association Goldsmiths Residents' Association

Hammersmith & Fulham Historic Buildings Group

133 Hanwell Village Conservation Area Residents Association

Lawn Road and Downside Crescent Residents

London Forum of Civic & Amenity Societies London Sports

Midland Terrace Pan Camden HS2 Alliance

St Helens Residents Association Old Oak Neighbourhood Forum

St Pancras Parish Church Parochial Church Council

The Island Triangle Residents' Association West Acton Residents Association

Wells House Road Residents Association Wormwood Scrubs Pony Centre

Wesley Estate Residents Association The Hammersmith Society

Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Trust (WSCT)

Wormwood Scrubs Local Nature Reserve

St Quintin and Woodlands Neighbourhood Forum

Accessibility Groups

Independent Disability Advisory Group Parkinson's UK

National Autistic Society Action on Hearing Loss

Leonard Cheshire Disability Disability Rights UK

London Older People's Strategy Group Alzheimer's Society

London Forum for the Elderly London Visual Impairment Forum

Wheels for Wellbeing RNIB

Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

British Deaf Association (BDA) National Pensioners Forum

Transport for All Thomas Pocklington Trust

Scope Trailblazers, Muscular Dystrophy UK

Royal Society of Blind Children Guide Dogs

Royal London Society for the Blind (RLSB) Age UK Camden

Age UK Camden Disability Action

134 Whizz Kidz Vision 2020

Asian People's Disability Alliance Brent MenCap

Hammersmith and Fulham Action on Disability

Hammersmith and Fulham Disability Forum

Valuing People (TfL's learning disability group)

Transport Groups

Camden Railway Heritage Trust Clapham Transport User Group

Ealing Passenger Transport Users Group Freight on Rail

Friends of Capital Transport High Speed 2

Highways Agency HS2 Euston Action Group

Campaign for Better Transport Brent Cyclists

London Group of Campaign for Better Transport

London Cycling Campaign Office of Rail Regulation

Sustrans Rail Delivery Group

West London Line Group London Travelwatch

Ealing Cycling Campaign Office of Rail Regulation

Association of Train Operating Companies Department for Transport

Virgin Trains London Midland

First Great Western Southern

Other Organisations

Canal and River Trust Historic England

Natural England John Perryn Primary

Old Oak Community Centre Old Oak Housing Association

Kesington Aldridge Academy Ark Burlington Danes Academy

Woodlane High School Imanova

135 W12 Conferences Ducane Housing Association

Ark Bentworth Primary Academy Clean Air London

London Wildlife Trust Living Streets

Friends of the Earth Centre for Cities

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority

London Ambulance Service Royal Mail

Port of London Authority London Councils

National Grid Met Police Community Policing

NHS Care Commissioning Group Ealing Safer Transport Team

HMP Wormwood Scrubs Old Oak Primary School

Linford Christie Outdoor Sport's Centre ARK Conway Primary Academy

Kenmont Primary School Wormholt Park Primary School

Thames Valley Harriers FC Kensington Football Club

British Waterways OPDC

EDF UKPN

Thames Water

136 Appendix E: Emails

Below is a copy of the email that was sent to registered Oyster card users in the area.

Are our emails displaying well on your device? If not, allow images or view online

Home Plan journey Status update Overground

Dear TfL recipient,

We would like your views on potential new London Overground stations in the Old Oak area at Old Oak Common Lane and Hythe Road.

For full details and to have your say, please visit tfl.gov.uk/old-oak- common

The stations would accommodate links to HS2 and the Elizabeth line and enhanced connections to the Old Oak area for residents and businesses.

Yours sincerely,

Alex Williams, Director of City Planning, TfL

Below is a copy of the email that was sent to all stakeholders.

137 Dear Stakeholder,

We have launched a consultation for two potential new London Overground stations in the Old Oak area and we would like to know your views on the proposals.

Details of the consultation can be found here: tfl.gov.uk/old-oak-common

The consultation closes on 17 November 2017.

To support the consultation, there are three public events taking place at the Nadi Park Royal, 260 Old Oak Common Lane, London, NW10 6DX:

30 October 12:30 – 19:30

4 November 10:30 – 16:00

6 November 12:30 – 19:30

If you have any questions regarding the consultation please email the consultation team at [email protected]

We look forward to receiving your views.

Yours faithfully,

Alex Williams

Director of City Planning

Transport for London

138 Appendix F: Press and online material

Below is a copy of the press release

PN-128 16 October 2017

TfL consults on two potential new London Overground stations at Old Oak

 Major station interchange at Old Oak would link London Overground, Elizabeth line and HS2 rail services  New stations would support the regeneration that HS2 and the Elizabeth line will bring to the area

Transport for London (TfL) has today begun a five week consultation on plans for two potential new London Overground stations that would provide a link to the Elizabeth line and High Speed 2 (HS2) and support the regeneration at Old Oak and Park Royal in west London.

Old Oak and Park Royal represents one of London’s largest Opportunity Areas and one of the UK’s biggest development sites. It is being managed by Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC), with the potential to deliver 25,500 new homes and 65,000 jobs. At the centre of these plans is a new station at Old Oak on the HS2 route providing connections between London, the Midlands and the North.

Improved local transport infrastructure, including connections to the London Overground network, would help support this level of regeneration and bring up to 250,000 more people and 150,000 additional jobs within an hour’s journey of Old Oak. The potential new London

139 Overground stations would improve local rail connections and provide links to the future Elizabeth line and HS2 services.

Alex Williams, TfL’s Director for City Planning, said: “These two potential new London Overground stations would improve connectivity to HS2 and support the regeneration at Old Oak and Park Royal. Delivering these would further build on the regeneration benefits of HS2 and the Elizabeth line and would help support new homes, jobs and opportunities for thousands of Londoners.”

Following on from the 2014 consultation, working with Network Rail and the OPDC and co- funded by the European Commission (EC), TfL has undertaken work to develop an initial design for potential stations at Hythe Road and Old Oak Common Lane.

TfL is now seeking views on these two potential new London Overground stations:

Hythe Road station – This potential new station would be situated about 700 metres from the HS2 and Elizabeth line station within one of the largest development sites called Old Oak Park within the OPDC area.

Old Oak Common Lane station – This potential new station would be situated about 350 metres to the west of HS2 and Elizabeth line station between Old Oak Common and Midland Terrace.

Further information about the station designs and details of how to respond to the consultation, which closes on 17 November, are available here http://www.tfl.gov.uk/old-oak- common

The outcome of this consultation will help determine the next steps for the potential stations. Responses will be considered alongside the overall business case, supplementary feasibility studies, the availability of funding and determining operational requirements.

Should these potential stations be taken forward, powers to deliver them would need to be secured through a Transport & Works Act Order (TWAO). Further consultation would be carried out on the proposals prior to any TWAO submission.

Ends

140 Below is a copy of the online banners seen on websites

Below is a copy of the press ads used in the Metro and other local media.

141 Appendix G: Campaign emails

Below is a copy of the email received from Midland Road Terrace residents Midland Terrace Residents response to TFL Old Oak Common Overground Station consultation

We support the two Overground Stations in Hythe Road (including the viaduct) and Old Oak Common Lane, which will offer a number of long-term benefits.

We feel however, that the Old Oak Common station is unacceptable in its current form.

The standard of the consultation has been very poor, with only 3.5 weeks to respond after receipt of consultation leaflets by mail and drop-ins with staff who were not briefed about many details of the station development and who were not equipped to answer questions. No clarity was offered and certain issues only became apparent when questions were asked.

We ask TFL to address the following issues:

1 Bridge versus a Tunnel option:  Over the 2-3 years in consultation with TFL over this station residents were assured that there would be a tunnel passing under the Old Oak Common Lane and railway lines en-route to Victoria Road. This was agreed between the previous TFL team with residents and with the previous head of transport at Ealing, Nick O’Donnell;  If a bridge is to be thrown into the mix, we expect TFL to conduct a consultation with the option of a bridge versus a tunnel;  At the meeting with TFL on 10th April, we were assured that the bridge and tunnel were about the same price and the cost was not the issue;  The tunnel would not impose such a huge structure on the surrounding area and would be much more in keeping with the local surroundings;  TFL and OPDC are fully aware of the impact of a bridge on local residents and have moved ahead with this decision against the wishes of and agreements with the community;  Residents groups were told that designs for the bridge were in the early stages. However, TFL had been working in collaboration with OPDC to pursue the concept of a bridge without consulting with residents;  As the bridge option is unacceptable to local residents, we demand bringing the tunnel option to further stages of the consultation and planning process.  Residents would also like to understand how cyclists would reach the station with the bridge not having a rump down into the station, as at the moment there seems to be no logical solution.

2. Midland Terrace planned entrance is unacceptable for the following reasons:

142

 The image of the entrance from the station was not included in the leaflet circulated to residents, it was not even mentioned. This has resulted in people not being aware of the impact on their lives as many are not on line and it is difficult to contact them. Not everyone will go to a consultation if they think it does affect them!  Midland Terrace and Shaftesbury Gardens is a quiet residential enclave cul- de-sac, with no pedestrian or vehicular traffic;  The entrance would mean that Shaftesbury Gardens would have to have their private car park CPO’d and increase parking in Midland Terrace as well as losing a lot of green mature screening in the form of mature trees and shrubs.  TFL’s projections assume approx. 10,000 passengers per day using the station, so we expect a huge pedestrian traffic on our street. This would impact on the privacy of residents, subject them to noise, litter and prove to be a security risk.  The police have notified local residents that most crime happens around stations, at the moment there is very little crime in this area and putting the entrance to the station here would heavily increase all forms of anti-social behaviour;  The main reason for the station is to increase connections with the Elizabeth line and HS2 station to other connections like the North Acton underground station. Lack of commitment to continue the bridge over Dudding Hill Line will direct all pedestrian traffic heading towards North Acton Station and Park Royal through our street. This option will have a very serious impact on us compared with the full bridge option (over Dudding Hill Line);  Entrance to Midland Terrace will bring heavy traffic to our street and large number of cars parked or waiting in our residential parking bays. Midland Terrace entrance will create this problem by opening a short pedestrian route to HS2, Cross Link and Main Line Railway Stations via Midland Terrace entrance. Due to lack of parking spaces near these stations, our residential streets will become an all-day waiting hub for all vehicles (private, minicab, Uber), waiting to pick up and drop off passengers using these stations. This will be catastrophic for our car owners, not being able to find parking spaces and for children who play in the street;  Lack of parking will cause our residents serious problems with their cars, as it will be no options to find alternative parking. Our residential enclave is surrounded (mostly) by industrial area with no alternative parking options. This will be catastrophic for many of our self-employed residents who rely on car ownership in their business.

3. Station design is unacceptable in its proposed form:

 The images are currently a work of fiction. There are extreme differences in elevation/levels between the OOC Lane’s embankment and the HS2 station. We need TFL to provide exact cross sections with elevation details before we can understand how this would work. There is no image at all of the bridge crossing Midland Terrace not giving clarity for people to respond too. In

143 addition, the pedestrian crossing across Old Oak Common Lane to access the HS2 station for (big part of) 10,000 people per day cannot work alongside cars and buses;  The station building needs to be reduced. During our earlier engagement with TFL we were assured that the footprint of the station would be small. TFL images show a 10m high structure, which would cause a huge visual impact. This huge structure (positioned to the East and South East) will vastly reduce the amount of natural light;  The station structure needs to be designed in such a way as to reduce the risk of a ‘resonance box’ amplifying or deflecting train generated sound. At present, heavy goods trains passing without any deflective structure above are very noisy;  Trees and foliage: Ealing has recently planted an avenue of trees along Old Oak Common Lane and we wish for these to be retains and for TFL to include mature trees and foliage in its designs, especially as it is a green corridor in the OPDC Local Plan.

4. TFL and OPDC need to be more sensitive to the needs of the existing and future residents. We request that TFL:

 Move to a consultation comparing options for bridge versus tunnel;  Abandon the idea of Midland Terrace entrance and find alternative solution to link the OOC Overground Station to North Acton and Victoria Road;  In case of a bridge option – deliver a bridge over the Dudding Hill Line, which is sensitive to local residents, possibly making it a bridge which will include trees and shrubs to lessen the impact of such a huge structure;  Provide exact details of sizes, heights and elevations of all structures around OOC Overground Station;  Reduce the station footprint;  Find solution for inevitable amplification of noise (or ‘resonance box’ effect) due to the planned design of the station building.

Below is a copy of the email received from Wells House Road residents

144

145

146

147