potential london overground stations at old oak...old oak and park royal development corporation...

Potential London Overground Stations at Old Oak Consultation Report

2

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

3

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

4

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.

5

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

map showing the potential

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.

Figure 1 - Potential locations of new London Overground stations

6

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

7

• 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

Common Lane station is shown in

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.

Figure 3 - Potential location of Old Oak Common Lane station

8

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

9

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.

10

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.

mailto:[email protected]

11

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.

12

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

13

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.

14

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 %

Public responses Consultation website 858 94%

Email 29 3%

Stakeholders Consultation website 7 1%

Email 17 2%

Total 911 100%

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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.

Figure 8 - Disability profile of respondents

No Not AnsweredPrefer not to

sayYes, limited a

littleYes, limited a

lot

Number 680 53 61 48 23

% 79% 6% 7% 6% 3%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

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

19

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.

20 Figure 9 - Consultation respondent locations: London

21 Figure 10 - Consultation respondent location by type: local to scheme

22

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.

23

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)

Strongly

support Support Oppose

Strongly

oppose

Neither

support or

oppose

What are your

views on… No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Providing two

new London

Overground

stations in the

Old Oak area

681 79% 130 15% 9 1% 16 2% 29 3%

The potential

station and

viaduct at Hythe

Road

509 59% 230 27% 12 1% 24 3% 86 10%

Old Oak

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

A bridge linking

Victoria Road to

the station

567 66% 188 22% 14 2% 20 2% 69 8%

24

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

Overground stations in the Old

Oak area

General support for the

proposed station at Hythe

Road

General support for the

proposed station at Old Oak

Common Lane

Support for the proposals due to

regeneration of the Old Oak area

Concern that the proposed


Overground services at Hythe

Road and HS2/Elizabeth Line

services is too far

Suggestion that interchange

between London Overground

services at Old Oak Common

Lane and HS2/Elizabeth line

services is made as convenient

as possible

Support for the proposals due to

enhanced public transport

connectivity to/from the Old Oak

area

Support for the proposed

station at Hythe Road due to

regeneration of the Old Oak

area

Support for a bridge link to

Victoria Road

Support for the principle of


Overground services and

HS2/Elizabeth Line services


station at Hythe Road station

due to enhanced public

transport access to

employment and housing


station at Old Oak Common

Lane due to the potential for

regeneration of the Old Oak

area

Suggestion that passenger


Overground services and

services at Old Oak Common

HS2/Elizabeth Line station must

be made as convenient as

possible

Support for the principle of


Overground services at Hythe

Road and HS2/Elizabeth Line

services


station at Old Oak Common

Lane due to potential for

enhanced connectivity into/out

of Old Oak Common

25

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


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 oppose

29 (3%) 29 (3%) 0

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.

26

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.

27

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.

28 Figure 13 - Support for two new London Overground stations: West London

29

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.

30 Figure 14 - Opposition to two new Overground stations at Old Oak Common

31

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.

32

Table 6 - Issues commonly raised about two proposed London Overground stations for Old Oak Common

Theme Nature of comment

Supportive Concern Suggestion Total 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 HS2/Elizabeth line services at Old Oak Common station

32 11 48 91

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

33

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

34

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


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


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.

35

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


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.

36

Designs and access arrangements for the proposed stations

Nature of comment


- 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


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.

37

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


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.

38

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


- - 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.

39

Scheme cost and funding

Nature of comment


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


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.

40

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


- 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.

41

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


- - 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


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.

42

The consultation process

Nature of comment


- 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


- 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.

43

Out of scope comments

Nature of comment


- - - 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.

44

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




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.



4.5.5 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



Support 230 (27%) 228 (27%) 2 (29%)

Oppose 12 (1%) 12 (1%) 0

Strongly oppose 24 (3%) 24 (3%) 0


86 (10%) 86 (10%) 0

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.

45

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

Map of support for Hythe Road


their response.


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.

46 Figure 16 - Support for a new Overground station and viaduct at Hythe road

47

Map of opposition to Hythe Road


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.

48 Figure 17 - Opposition to a new station and viaduct at Hythe Road

49

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.



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



each.

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

50

Table 8 - Issues commonly raised about a new London Overground station at Hythe Road

Theme

Nature of comment


Passenger interchange between London Overground services at Hythe Road and HS2/Elizabeth line services

11 44 18 73


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


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



51



Common station

Nature of comment


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.

52

General support for proposals

Nature of comment


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


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.

53

Additionally, two respondents were concerned that the proposals could

potentially destroy the existing local community.


Nature of comment


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.

54


Nature of comment


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


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.

55


Nature of comment


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


- - 23 23

4.5.41 23 comments were made which provided an alternative suggestion for the

planning and operation of London Overground services.

56

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


- - 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.

57


Nature of comment


- 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.

58


Nature of comment


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.

59

Preferred station option

Nature of comment


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.


Nature of comment


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.

60

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


- 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


- - - 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.


“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.

61

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



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.



4.6.5 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



Support 176 (20%) 174 (20%) 2 (29%)

Oppose 13 (2%) 13 (2%) 0 (0%)

Strongly oppose 21 (2%) 21 (2%) 0 (0%)


29 (3%) 29 (3%) 0 (0%)

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.

62

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

Map of support for Old Oak Common Lane


their response.


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.

63 Figure 19 - Support for a new Overground station at Old Oak Common Lane

64

Map of opposition to Old Oak Common Lane


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.

65 Figure 20 - Opposition to a new Overground station at Old Oak Common Lane

66

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.



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



each.

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

67

Table 10 - Issues commonly raised about a new London Overground station at Old Oak Common Lane

Theme Nature of comment


Passenger interchange between London Overground services at Old Oak Common Lane and HS2/Elizabeth Line services

22 18 49 89

Comments on the link bridge to Victoria Road 43 13 31 87


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

- 52 - 52

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


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


The consultation process - 1 3 4

Impact of the proposals on the local road network 1 1- - 2


68



Common station

Nature of comment


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.

69

Comments on the link bridge to Victoria Road

Nature of comment


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.

70

General support for the proposals

Nature of comment


61 61

4.6.30 61 comments were made expressing general support for the proposed station at


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


- 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.

71

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.


Nature of comment


- 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.

72


Nature of comment


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


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

73

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


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.

74

An alternative proposal for London Overground services

Nature of comment


- - 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.


Nature of comment


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


4.6.61 Comments comprised 11 expressions of support, seven expressions of concern,

and seven suggestions. One respondent expressed conditional support.

75

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.


Nature of comment


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.

76

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


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.


Nature of comment


- 3 9 12

4.6.72 12 comments were made on the environmental impacts related to a station at


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.

77

Concern

4.6.75 Two respondents expressed concern that the proposals could encroach onto

Wormwood Scrubs.

Preferred station option

Nature of comment


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


- 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”.

78

The consultation process

Nature of comment


- 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.


Nature of comment


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


- - - 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


“suggest immediate start to scoping of an eastward extension of HS2”, potential

new London Underground stations and local cycling routes.

79

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?”


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


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.



4.6.92 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%


69 8%

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.

80

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

81

Summary of responses to the closed queston; “would you like to see the

bridge link to Victoria Road as soon as possible?”


views on whether they would like to see the bridge link built as soon as possible. As




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 all

29 3%

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.

82

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

83

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.

84

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.

85

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

86

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.

87

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).

88

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.

89

Natural England

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

Developers.

90

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

91

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.

92

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.

93

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.

94

Theme – Further, general comments

Nature of comment

Comment Responses % of total

respondents Total theme 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 principles

1 0.11%

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 various options

1 0.11%

Environmental impacts of proposals

Concern Concern over potentially negative environmental impacts of proposals 5 0.55% 34

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 comment

Support Generally supportive of proposals 104 11.42% 105

Support Support proposals as positive for the UK 1 0.11%


Concern Generally unsupportive 5 0.55% 7

Concern Oppose creation of new stations and purchase of new rolling stock 2 0.22%

Local community and jobs concern

Concern Concern about disruption for local residents during construction phase 12 1.32% 27

95


Nature of comment



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 Support proposals due to regeneration of the Old Oak area 41 4.50% 83

Support Support proposals as they facilitate investment and/or redevelopment plans for the Old Oak area

14 1.54%

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 proposals

2 0.22%

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%

96


Nature of comment



Concern Concern that shortcomings in passenger interchange in the proposals will push demand from rail to road

1 0.11%

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 Road

1 0.11%

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 traffic due to proposals

1 0.11%

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 connections

Support Support proposals due to enhanced connectivity to/from the Old Oak area 39 4.28% 93

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 sufficient

2 0.22%

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 services to Milton Keynes

2 0.22%

Concern Concern that construction of the new stations will increase journey times on existing National Rail lines

1 0.11%

Concern Concern that proposals are aimed at meeting local transport needs rather than wider London transport goals

1 0.11%

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%

97


Nature of comment



Suggest Suggest that external station realm improvements are planned early to ensure Old Oak Common's position as an orbital interchange

1 0.11%

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 next 50-100 years

1 0.11%

Suggest Suggest that local and national transport bodies/organisations co-operate fully to achieve improved connectivity

1 0.11%

Out of scope Alternative proposal

Suggest that the proposals should provide a connection to the Central Line 9 0.99% 98

Alternative proposal

Suggest that the proposals should provide a connection to the Underground 7 0.77%

Overground alternative proposal

Suggest that Willesden Junction is redeveloped 5 0.55%


Suggest creation of an Overground Station, Westway Circus, at the Westway 4 0.44%

HS2 Concern that HS2 is a waste of money 3 0.33%


Suggest a connection between the proposed stations and the Hounslow Loop 2 0.22%

Environmental impacts

Concern that bird box schemes are not fit for purpose due to removal of trees and food sources for birds

2 0.22%

HS2 Concern that HS2 is controversial 2 0.22%


Concern that existing rail journey times are too slow 2 0.22%


Suggest that proposals include improved connections to Hounslow 2 0.22%


Suggest that Willesden Junction is renovated 2 0.22%

Old Oak Common

Concern that proposals have been too heavily influenced by the OPDC 1 0.11%

98


Nature of comment



Redevelopment strategy

Old Oak redevelopment

Suggest that further information is provided on development masterplan 1 0.11%

Old Oak redevelopment

Suggest transport strategy should focus on meeting travel demand rather than regeneration goals

1 0.11%


Suggest creation of new Central Line station between North Acton and Hanger Lane 1 0.11%


Suggest implementing a twin track alignment from Northolt to Old Oak Common to allow access for Chiltern Railways services

1 0.11%


Suggest creating a rail link to Brentford via Kew 1 0.11%


Suggest creation of a dedicated Heathrow shuttle on the Elizabeth line 1 0.11%


Suggest focusing on re-planning the 112 bus route 1 0.11%


Suggest reinstating a regular Underground service to Olympia 1 0.11%

Overground service provision

Suggest the creation of a new east facing bay at Acton Mainline to increase service capacity on future Dudding Hill Line

1 0.11%


Suggest that access is provided to Park Royal 1 0.11%


Suggest that all five stations are constructed on top of each other (e.g. High Level, Low Level, Underground)

1 0.11%


Suggest that any new rail lines are built underground to minimise noise 1 0.11%


Suggest that National Rail services stop at Willesden Junction 1 0.11%


Suggest that plans should instead focus on the Victoria Line in north Kensington 1 0.11%


Suggest that platforms at Heathrow station feature improved multilingual wayfinding provision

1 0.11%


Suggest that proposals should provide a connection to the Piccadilly Line at Willesden Junction

1 0.11%


Suggest that the gas works in north Kensington is a more convenient location for a Crossrail station

1 0.11%


Suggest that the proposals should provide a connection to the Bakerloo Line 1 0.11%

Alternative Suggest operating more rail services from Heathrow to London 1 0.11%

99


Nature of comment



proposal

Consultation process

Appreciates being consulted 1 0.11%

Consultation process

Expresses intention to attend consultation meeting 1 0.11%

Environmental impacts

Concern over dust created by European Storage site at Friars 1 0.11%

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 implemented

1 0.11%

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%


Suggest that the Elizabeth Line is extended to Hertfordshire 1 0.11%


Concern that local north and south travel options are currently limited for Central Line passengers

1 0.11%


Suggest that access to airports is improved in general 1 0.11%


Suggest that more information is provided on connection with Queens Park Rangers 1 0.11%


Suggest that the proposals include a bus route from Acton Central 1 0.11%


Suggest constructing a further Overground station at Latimer Road 1 0.11%


Suggest constructing a station at the former Eurostar depot on North Pole Road 1 0.11%


Suggest reinstating Willesden Junction platforms removed in 1960s 1 0.11%

Overground alternative

Suggest revitalising the Dudding Hill Line to provide even more possibilities for connections in Old Oak Common

1 0.11%

100


Nature of comment



proposal


Suggest that a station at North Pole Road would provide better access to White City 1 0.11%


Suggest that access is improved to Harrow Road side of Willesden Junction as it will constitute an important link

1 0.11%


Suggest that Portobello Road station is added to the Elizabeth Line 1 0.11%


Suggest that section of rail between the Acton Wells junctions should feature four tracks to increase service capacity and remove bottlenecks

1 0.11%


Suggest that direct services to Heathrow on the West London Line are restored 1 0.11%


Concern that connectivity for residents in North Pole Road is not a priority 1 0.11%


Suggest increasing Overground service frequency from Willesden Junction to Bromley South/ Orpington via South London line and West London line.

1 0.11%


Suggest that more Overground services are implemented from Willesden Junction to Bromley/South Orpington on South London and West London lines

1 0.11%

Roads Concern about amount of traffic generated by recycling centre on Wood Lane 1 0.11%

Walking and cycling

Concern that cycling near the proposal site is currently dangerous due to level of HGVs 1 0.11%

Walking and cycling

Suggest creation of a cycle route through Wormwood Scrubs 1 0.11%

Walking and cycling

Suggest creation of a Cycle Superhighway to Old Oak Common 1 0.11%

Walking and cycling

Suggest providing cycling routes to link schools to residences as part of wider development of local area

1 0.11%


Suggest that the bridge link to Old Oak Common will more easily facilitate the construction of a new Overground station on the Dudding Hill Line

1 0.11%

Unclear comment

Unclear comment 1 0.11%

Station design Suggest that all rail construction work should be completed before construction of residential accommodation at HS2 station

1 0.11%


Suggest providing more routes between Heathrow and London 1 0.11%

101


Nature of comment




Suggest running joined services from Heathrow to London which split en route 1 0.11%


Suggest Suggest that North Pole Road is a better location for a new Overground station 3 0.33% 31

Suggest Concern that Old Oak Common Lane Lane and Hythe Road stations are too close together; reconsider locations

2 0.22%

Suggest Suggest that Old Oak Common Lane station features passive provision to allow for future stations on potential lines such as Dudding Hill

2 0.22%

Suggest Suggest that proposals are amended to reroute existing Overground directly to the new stations lines to provide a more direct connection with HS2

2 0.22%

Suggest Suggest that feasibility work on orbital connections at Old Oak Common is carried out before the proposals are frozen

1 0.11%

Suggest Suggest a curve to bring Clapham line trains between or to the north of the Crossrail trains, so an additional curve can take them back to Brent Cross or Willesden

1 0.11%

Suggest Suggest creating a connection with West Coat Mainline at proposed Hythe Road Overground station

1 0.11%

Suggest Suggest routeing trains from Richmond through new platforms at Willesden Junction if Hythe Road Overground station is not constructed

1 0.11%

Suggest Suggest slewing the Richmond-Willesden line east to build new platforms above and at right angles to the Great Western platforms

1 0.11%

Suggest Suggest that a connection between proposed Hythe Road station and West Coast Mainline would create a good interchange point for Heathrow

1 0.11%

Suggest Suggest that a new branch of the West London Line from Clapham Junction would provide better interchange with HS2/Elizabeth line than the proposals

1 0.11%

Suggest Suggest that Acton Mainline branch line is used as an alternative connection to and from Crossrail/Great Western services

1 0.11%

Suggest Suggest that an alternative station at Mitre Bridge would provide better interchange with HS2/Elizabeth Line than the proposals

1 0.11%

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 reduce journey times

1 0.11%

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%

102


Nature of comment



Suggest Suggest implementing a double-track rail link between HS2 station at Old Oak Common and the West London Line north of Westway Circus

1 0.11%

Suggest Suggest implementing a 12-car platform deck over the present axis of the HS2 platforms at Old Oak Common for existing rail services

1 0.11%

Suggest Suggest building a new rail chord joining the proposed Hythe Road and Old Oak Common Lane station

1 0.11%

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 station needs to be considered before the design for that station is frozen

1 0.11%


Support Support proposals for creation of Overground connections that remove need for travel to Central London to change services

9 0.99% 36

Suggest Suggest that the frequency of Overground services should be increased to accommodate proposals

5 0.55%

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 Orbital Route

2 0.22%

Suggest Suggest that capacity of Overground trains is increased to meet growth in passenger demand due to new stations

2 0.22%

Support Support the proposals due to improved connections between Ealing Broadway and North London Line

2 0.22%

Concern Concern that plans are too heavily influenced by attempting to minimise disruption during construction

1 0.11%

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 between Old Oak Common and Shepherds Bush

1 0.11%

Support Conditional support on the condition that plans for a station at Westway Circus are not affected

1 0.11%

Suggest Suggest that more information is provided on proposal's impact on Willesden Traction Maintenance Depot

1 0.11%

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 accommodate the proposals

1 0.11%

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 overcrowding on west bound Underground services

1 0.11%

103


Nature of comment



Concern Concern that plans will not improve existing poor rail service 1 0.11%

Passenger interchange facilities

Support Support the principle of interchange between Overground and HS2/Elizabeth Line 32 3.51% 91

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 effective interchange

5 0.55%

Suggest Suggest that more detailed information is provided on interchange between services for both stations

5 0.55%

Suggest Suggest that good links are needed between the Overground and Bakerloo line/Underground services

3 0.33%

Suggest Suggest that interchange between lines/services must be covered/sheltered from adverse weather

3 0.33%

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 Overground and HS2/Elizabeth Line

2 0.22%

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%

104


Nature of comment



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 transport infrastructure in the area

1 0.11%

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 Common

1 0.11%

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%

105


Nature of comment



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 Oak Common from North West London

1 0.11%

106

Theme – Hythe Road Nature of comment



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 negatively affected

2 0.22%

Concern Concern about noise impacts during construction 1 0.11%

Concern Concern that a potential increase in road congestion created by the proposals will reduce air quality in the area

1 0.11%

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


Concern Concern that transformation of Old Oak to a residential area is unrealistic 5 0.55% 13

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 residents able to live in the new Old Oak Park development

1 0.11%

Local community and jobs conditional support

Support Support proposals on condition that the proposals bring new jobs into the area 1 0.11% 2

Support Support proposals on the condition that they are beneficial for local residents 1 0.11%

Local community and jobs suggestion

Suggest Suggest that retail outlets are also provided in the development 3 0.33% 4

Suggest Suggest that the proposals include social housing 1 0.11%


Support Support scheme due to regeneration of Old Oak area 19 2.09% 24

Support Support scheme due to potential creation of new jobs locally 3 0.33%

107




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 line

1 0.11%

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 Chiltern Railways services

1 0.11%

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 services given the scale of the plans

1 0.11%

Concern Concern that structural integrity of road bridges on Scrubs Lane is not sufficient to handle an increase in road traffic

1 0.11%

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 residents

1 0.11%

Suggest Support Hythe Road station due to enhanced public transport links to the Scrub Lane area

1 0.11%

Suggest Support proposals due to improved access to central London 1 0.11%

London Overground alternative proposal

Suggest Suggest an alternative station location at North Pole Road 5 0.55% 23

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 Railway service to Milton Keynes

1 0.11%

Suggest Suggest an alternative station location at the embankment on Scrubs Lane 1 0.11%

108




Suggest Suggest an alternative station location south of the junction between rail branches, towards Wembley Central and Willesden Junction High Level

1 0.11%

Suggest Suggest building terminating platforms for trains to/from Clapham Junction alongside Crossrail platforms

1 0.11%

Suggest Suggest connection from Clapham Junction to Great Western Old Oak Common, with further loop to Willesden Junction or Cricklewood line

1 0.11%

Suggest Suggest creating a new branch of the North London Line to create an alternative station west of proposed Hythe Road site

1 0.11%

Suggest Suggest creating an addition station on the West London Line at Imperial College West Campus on Latimer Road

1 0.11%

Suggest Suggest Hythe Road features two platforms instead of three, to allow creation of passive provision for Willesden Junction bound trains

1 0.11%

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 closer to the HS2/Elizabeth Line station

1 0.11%

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 Dudding Hill Line

1 0.11%

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 demand created by proposals

4 0.44%

Support Support measures that improve orbital connections and reduce need to travel through Central London

3 0.33%

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 Bush/Olympia will increase

2 0.22%

Concern Concern over route due to gradient between Mitre Bridge Junction and Willesden Junction High Level

1 0.11%

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 Overground map

1 0.11%

Suggest Suggest that interchange with West Coast Mainline should be considered 1 0.11%

109




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 London

1 0.11%

Support Support proposals to provide passive provision for future 8-car operation 1 0.11%

Out of scope comments Irrelevant comment

Irrelevant comment 5 0.55% 31

Rail services Concern that planned route misses opportunity to connect Milton Keynes and East Croydon

2 0.22%

Rail services Suggest building an additional station at Westway Circus 2 0.22%


Suggest considering relocating North Acton Underground Station to create an effective connection to the Central Line

1 0.11%


Suggest creating a smaller station that connects to the Central Line 1 0.11%


Suggest providing more 775m+ capability around the Old Oak area 1 0.11%


Suggest Shepherds Bush station is made more accessible 1 0.11%

Environmental impact

Suggest restriction on trains carrying nuclear waste through the site 1 0.11%

HS2 Concern that HS2 timetable will be liable to slipping, potentially affecting construction of the mainline station at Old Oak Common

1 0.11%


Concern that details on the design of the wider area have not been forthcoming from Old Oak Park Development Company

1 0.11%

Local community and jobs suggestion

Suggest that the development includes a new stadium for Queens Park Rangers FC 1 0.11%


Suggest creation of a "super station" where Clapham and Richmond trains diverge 1 0.11%


Suggest redeveloping Willesden Junction 1 0.11%

110





Suggest reinstating a station at St Quentin's Gardens 1 0.11%

London Overground service provision

Suggest adopting Thameslink technology to allow up to 30 trains per hour to run on Overground lines and increase frequency/capacity on the line

1 0.11%

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%


Suggest that development income from Old Oak should be used to fund improvements at Shepherds Bush Underground Station

1 0.11%

Passenger interchange facilities concern

Concern Concern that interchange between Overground and HS2/Elizabeth Line is too far 37 4.06% 44

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 suggestion

Suggest Suggest that interchange must be as convenient as possible 7 0.77% 18

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%

111




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 proposals

1 0.11%

Support Support maintaining permeability of Old Oak Common for vehicles following implementation of proposals

1 0.11%

Scheme cost and funding Suggest Suggest spending money on redeveloping/renovating existing rail provision instead of this scheme

5 0.55% 16

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%

112




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 footbridge into Hythe Road estate

1 0.11%

113

Theme - Old Oak Common Lane

Nature of comment



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 proposals

Suggest Suggest that the station building is environmentally friendly 6 0.66% 12

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 swifts

1 0.11%

Suggest Suggest that the development respects the current environmental landscape 1 0.11%

Generally suporrtive comment

Support Support proposals for station at Old Oak Common Lane 61 6.70% 61


Concern Oppose proposals for station at Old Oak Common Lane 6 0.66% 6


Concern Concern about disruption for residents during construction 10 1.10% 52

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 there

1 0.11%

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%

114


Nature of comment



Concern Concern about loss of parking spaces for residents of Midland Terrace if proposals are implemented

1 0.11%

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 preferred proposal option

1 0.11%


Support Support proposals due to regeneration of Old Oak area 27 2.96% 37

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 memories of the area

1 0.11%

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 connections

Support Support Old Oak Common Lane Station due to enhanced connectivity into/out of Old Oak Common

20 2.20% 40

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 modes

2 0.22%

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 Bush

1 0.11%

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 Railway services and south west London

1 0.11%

Alternative proposal for London Overground

Suggest Suggest future proofing the station for potential connections to stations on a revitalised Dudding Hill Line

9 0.99% 27

Suggest Suggest that Old Oak Common Lane has a turn-back facility 2 0.22%

115


Nature of comment



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, East, South, and West

1 0.11%

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 Bakerloo/Overground route

1 0.11%

Suggest Suggest that Old Oak Station is moved further south to allow better connectivity between Old Oak Common Lane and Victoria Road

1 0.11%

Suggest Suggest that rerouteing Overground directly to the Elizabeth Line station will reduce impact on existing lines during construction

1 0.11%

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 platforms on the Dudding Hill line

1 0.11%

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-routed to Clapham Junction

1 0.11%

London Overground services

Support Support Old Oak Lane station due to capacity to accommodate 8 car trains 3 0.33% 25

Support Support Old Oak Common Lane station due to creation of connections that remove need to travel to central London

3 0.33%

Concern Concern over existing levels of overcrowding 2 0.22%

Concern Concern that current Overground rolling stock will struggle to meet passenger demand created by new station

2 0.22%

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 Overground services

2 0.22%

116


Nature of comment



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 proposals

1 0.11%

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 Oak Common

1 0.11%

Concern Concern that proposals appear to remove possibility for passive provision for the Dudding Hill line

1 0.11%

Out of scope Alternative proposal

Suggest that the station should connect with the Central Line 4 0.44% 27

Unclear response

Unclear response 3 0.33%


Suggest that the station provides better access to North Acton 2 0.22%


Suggest creating a moving runway linking Willesden Junction to HS2/Crossrail 2 0.22%


Suggest improving connections between Old Oak Common Lane and Willesden Junction 2 0.22%


Suggest an alternative Crossrail site at old gas works in Ladbroke Grove 1 0.11%


Suggest diverting the line into the old Eurostar depot 1 0.11%


Suggest dropping Elizabeth Line name 1 0.11%


Suggest improving connections to Piccadilly Line 1 0.11%


Suggest providing more Crossrail stations between Paddington and Acton Mainline 1 0.11%


Suggest that HS2 should terminate at Old Oak Common Lane 1 0.11%

Local Suggest that the Acton Main Line could provide an alternative connection between Crossrail 1 0.11%

117


Nature of comment



transport connections

and Great Western Railway services

Consultation Process

Concern that consultation documents do not illustrate the Central Line 1 0.11%

Consultation Process

Concern that the existing freight loop line is shown on the maps 1 0.11%


Suggest that a new football ground should be at the heart of the development 1 0.11%


Suggest that more information is provided on connections to Queens Park Rangers 1 0.11%


Suggest that Old Oak Station is moved further south to allow passive interchange with Central Line

1 0.11%


Suggest upgrading Willesden Junction 1 0.11%

HS2 Concern that HS2 is controversial 1 0.11%

Passenger interchange concern

Concern Concern about lack of detail on interchange between Overground and Elizabeth Line/HS2 7 0.77% 18

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 station is too long

5 0.55%

Passenger interchange suggestion

Suggest Suggest that interchange between lines must be as convenient as possible 31 3.40% 49

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 Common Lane

2 0.22%

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%

118


Nature of comment



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 Support Old Oak Common as it provides better option than Hythe Road for interchange with HS2 and Elizabeth Line

17 1.87% 22

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 not completed

1 0.11%

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 completed

1 0.11%

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 station

1 0.11%

Suggest Suggest that the Old Oak Common Lane and HS2/Crossrail stations should be named differently to help satnav users

1 0.11%

Suggest Suggest that the station features adequate car parking 1 0.11%

119


Nature of comment



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 residents on Midland Terrace

3 0.33% 13

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 residents of Shaftesbury Gardens

1 0.11%

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 suggestion

Suggest Suggest that the bridge is built as part of the development, not later 7 0.77% 30

Suggest Suggest that the bridge must be accessible, i.e. step free 3 0.33%

120


Nature of comment



Suggest Suggest that the bridge should link with the potential West London orbital route on Dudding Hill Line

3 0.33%

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 the bridge

1 0.11%

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 Terrace

1 0.11%

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 Wormwood Scrubs

1 0.11%

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 Victoria Road on the Dudding Hill line

1 0.11%

Victoria Road bridge support

Support Support of bridge 29 3.18% 43

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 possible

1 0.11%

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 Road

1 0.11%

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%

121


Nature of comment



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 Canal

1 0.11%

Support Support scheme for potential road safety improvements for pedestrians 1 0.11%

122

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?


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?


Oppose Strongly oppose Q5: What are your views on a bridge linking Victoria Road to the station?


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

123

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):

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 an email from TfL Received a leaflet

from TfL Social media

Saw it on the TfL website Read about it in the

press

Other (please

specify)______________________

Equality Monitoring Form

Gender

Are you:

A local resident A local business

owner Employed locally

A visitor to the

area

A commuter to

the area

Not local but interested in the

scheme

124

□ 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

125

□ 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

126

□ Lesbian □ Other □ Prefer not to say

127

Appendix C: Consultation leaflet

131

Map of consultation area

132

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,

133

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

134

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

135

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

136

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

137

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.

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/public/read_message.jsp?tsp=1508252818635&custid=6210&uid=6310455107&sig=FGFJLGJPPHPGMLCE&mid=601441162

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=D0I9y2yyyI2wd2ybnI9

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=D0I9y2yyyI2wd2ybnIa

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=D0I9y2yyyI2wd2ybnIb

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=D0I9y2yyyI2wd2ybnIc

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=D0I9y2yyyI2wd2ybnIe

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=D0I9y2yyyI2wd2ybnIe

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=D0I9y2yyyI2wd2ybnId

http://info.tfl.gov.uk/re?l=D0I9y2yyyI2wd2ybnIf

138

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

139

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

140

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

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/old-oak

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/old-oak

141

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.

142

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:

143

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

144

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

potential london overground stations at old oak...old oak and park royal development corporation...

Documents