13 Responses from stakeholders 13.1 Introduction 13.1.1 This chapter presents a summary of the responses submitted by stakeholders. As outlined in Chapter 2, stakeholders were classified by type according to their area of interest / influence. Section 13.3 identifies the different types of stakeholders represented in the questionnaire and free-format response data. 13.1.2 The most frequent type of stakeholders is business representatives. These account for over half of all stakeholder questionnaire responses (69 responses). A number of residents’ / community groups (13%), political stakeholders (8%), transport users (8%) and health stakeholders (5%) also participated in the consultation by completing the questionnaire. 13.1.3 TfL received free-format responses in the form of letters and emails from 41 different stakeholders. These responses were ‘free-format’ in the sense that they did not directly address the questions in the online questionnaire. 13.1.4 A number of political stakeholders (including MPs, councillors and political parties) responded via free-format response (18), as did London boroughs (six). Four transport groups and three campaign groups are also represented in the free-format summaries. 13.1.5 This chapter presents the analysis of stakeholder responses to the closed questions in the online questionnaire and a summary of the free-format stakeholder responses. 13.2 Closed questionnaire responses 13.2.1 As shown in Figure 13-1, the majority (95%) of stakeholders expressed support or strong support for the principle of extending the Bakerloo line into southeast London from its current end point at Elephant & Castle (Question 5). 13.2.2 The majority (86%) of stakeholders stated that they support the extension on the basis that it would enable new development in southeast London. Eight percent of stakeholders disagree (i.e. answered ‘no’ to Question 7) while 5% answered ‘maybe (Figure 13-2). 13.2.3 Just over half of all stakeholders (53%) support/strongly support the principle of extending the Bakerloo line via the Old Kent Road (Option 1a). Around a quarter (27%) stated that they neither support nor oppose this route option, while a fifth (20%) are opposed/strongly opposed (Question 9). 13.2.4 Stakeholders expressed a slightly higher level of support for extending the Bakerloo line via Camberwell and Peckham Rye (Option 1b). Overall, 59% of stakeholders support/strongly support this route option, while 30% neither support nor oppose it and 9% are opposed/strongly opposed to Option 1b (Question 11). 13.2.5 Stakeholder opinions on terminating the extension at Lewisham are polarised: while 31% support/strongly support this option, 38% are opposed/strongly opposed and 29% neither support nor oppose it (Question 13). 13.2.6 Stakeholders are more supportive of the extension terminating at Beckenham Junction and Hayes: 58% support/strongly support this option, while 26% neither support nor oppose it and 14% are opposed/strongly opposed (Question 15). 157 13.2.7 Stakeholders expressed a similar level of support for the extension going beyond Beckenham Junction to Bromley town centre in a new tunnel: 57% support this option, while 33% neither support nor oppose it and 10% are opposed/strongly opposed (Question 17). Figure 13-1: Summary of stakeholder responses to closed questions (excluding Question 7) Figure 13-2: Stakeholder responses to Question 7 13.3 Free-format responses 13.3.1 Forty-one different stakeholder organisations submitted responses to the consultation in the form of letters and emails. These responses were ‘free-format’ in the sense that they did not directly address the questions in the online questionnaire. The submissions have been analysed and their key points have been summarised in Section 13.4. 158 13.3.2 Stakeholders were classified by type according to their area of interest/influence. Table 13-1 shows the different types of stakeholder represented in the summaries presented in this chapter. The summaries capture the views of a number of political stakeholders (including MPs, councillors and political parties), London boroughs, transport stakeholders and campaign groups. Table 13-1: Breakdown of consultation responses by stakeholder type (free format responses) Stakeholder Number of respondents Political stakeholders 18 London boroughs 6 Campaign groups 3 Transport stakeholders 4 Heritage, environment and water / waste stakeholders 3 Residents / community / amenity groups 2 Health stakeholders 1 Businesses (incl. landowners) 1 Housing stakeholders 1 District councils 1 Partnership groups 1 Total 41 13.4 Stakeholder (free-format) summaries 13.4.1 The summaries of the free-format stakeholder responses are set out in the following sections, organised by stakeholder category. Please note that stakeholders that responded via the online questionnaire, including London TravelWatch, are not summarised in the following section. 13.4.2 Political stakeholders Fiona Twycross, London wide Assembly Member (Labour), Greater London Authority ■ Supports the proposals and the potential regeneration benefits and welcomes the development and delivery of both routes. States that while either route would bring considerable benefits to local communities, the two-route option would future proof and enhance the offer. Supports improved transport connectivity further south to Bromley and Hayes to ensure that the benefits of the improved Underground network are realised across the entire sub-region. ■ In regards to the Camberwell and Peckham route: highlights the current congestion, reliance on buses, and the potential to maximise transport connectivity. ■ In regards to the Old Kent Road route: highlights the area being a designated Opportunity Area and hence the increase in residential and employment provision will justify considerable improvements to transport connectivity. ■ The reallocation of train paths (to London Bridge from Hayes) is mentioned and the response also requests the retention of existing train services to central London. 159 Caroline Pidgeon, Chair of the London Assembly Transport Committee ■ Strongly supports the proposal to extend the Bakerloo line as it makes use of its extra capacity to connect southeast London and alleviates crowding on other routes. ■ The Committee does not exert a preference over Option 1a or b and notes that, ideally, both areas would be served by an extension as both routes would provide significant benefits to local residents. ■ Expressed concern that Options 1a and b are presented in the consultation documents as ‘zero- sum’ options which do not consider complementary transport schemes. Calls for the extension to be part of a coordinated strategy for transport improvements in southeast London, e.g. by developing the proposal to re-open Camberwell station for Thameslink services as it is strongly linked to the Bakerloo line proposals. ■ States that an extension of the London Underground to Hayes and Beckenham Junction would bring many benefits along the route. Notes that it is not presented as an option in the consultation documents which suggests that TfL considers this to be a necessary part of the extension. ■ States that there is an overall lack of detail and clarity in the consultation documents in order to provide an in depth response, particularly in regards to alternatives within a wider plan and cost breakdowns. ■ Supportive of the extension to Hayes, however, requests TfL further researches the withdrawal of National Rail services and does not disadvantage these passengers. ■ Supports Option 2 to Bromley town centre in principle, but states that further detail in the proposal is required. ■ Requests TfL to continue investigating other options such as Tramlink extensions to improve connectivity for southeast London residents. Valerie Shawcross, London Assembly Member for Lambeth and Southwark ■ Supports the proposals to extend the Bakerloo line. ■ Supports both Options 1a and 1b, stating that both areas would benefit from the regeneration opportunities and enhanced infrastructure. ■ States that the availability of readily re-developable land may result in Option 1b being chosen. ■ Requests that TfL commit to improving transport options for whichever route is not chosen for the extension, as both require capacity improvements. ■ Requests that, in the short term, TfL investigates improving bus service capacity, especially during the morning peak period. ■ States that regeneration opportunities and capacity relief on the National Rail network in southeast London is necessary. ■ Requests that TfL ensures that any replacement of services by the Bakerloo line does not disadvantage Hays line users. ■ Supports the Option 2 extension to Hayes and Bromley via Beckenham. ■ States that the extension is not the last solution for public transport issues in southeast London and asks that TfL investigates further connectivity plans i.e. Tramlink and Overground. Simon Hughes, MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark ■ Strongly supports the extension of the Bakerloo line in principle and the prospects of regeneration that it may bring to Bermondsey and Old Southwark. ■ Supports both Options 1a and 1b and states that both areas are in need of connectivity, regeneration and alleviation of congestion. States that 97% of respondents to a survey he 160 conducted with businesses on the Old Kent Road agree. States that while building both route options would be more expensive, the economic benefits would make up for the additional costs. ■ States that the area is poorly served by the Underground