London Overground extension to
Barking Riverside
Spring 2015 public consultation report
London Overground extension to
Barking Riverside
Spring 2015 public consultation report
Published September 2015
2
Contents
1
Executive Summary........................................................................................................ 4
2
Introduction..................................................................................................................... 8
3
Background to the scheme ........................................................................................... 10
4
Methodology ................................................................................................................. 11
5
Overview of consultation responses ............................................................................. 14
6
Analysis of consultation responses .............................................................................. 16
7
Responses from stakeholders ...................................................................................... 29
8
Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 35
9
Next steps .................................................................................................................... 35
Appendix A1 – Comments raised for Question 9 ................................................................ 36
Appendix A2 – Comments raised for Question 10 .............................................................. 38
Appendix A3 – Comments raised for Question 11 .............................................................. 40
Appendix A4 – Comments raised for Question 12 .............................................................. 43
Appendix B – Copy of the consultation letter ...................................................................... 44
Appendix C – Letter distribution area .................................................................................. 45
Appendix D – 19 June letter to Choats Road (IG11 0X_) ................................................... 46
Appendix E – Letter to Stakeholders ................................................................................... 47
Appendix F – Email to Stakeholders ................................................................................... 48
Appendix G – List of stakeholders consulted ...................................................................... 49
Appendix H – Copy of the consultation leaflet..................................................................... 53
Appendix I – Public events .................................................................................................. 60
Appendix J – Message to Oyster users .............................................................................. 61
Appendix K – Press advert.................................................................................................. 62
Appendix L – Press release ................................................................................................ 63
Appendix M - Response to questions ................................................................................. 64
3
1
Executive Summary
1.1
In spring 2015 Transport for London (TfL) conducted a seven week public
consultation on the proposal to extend the London Overground Gospel Oak to
Barking line from Barking to the Barking Riverside development. The consultation
ran from 11 May 2015 to 28 June 2015.
1.2
This was a second round of consultation on the proposed extension. A high level
consultation on the principle of the scheme was undertaken in the autumn of 2014,
90% of respondents to which said they supported the scheme in principle1.
1.3
The spring 2015 consultation asked again for views on the principle of an extension
and for comments on two possible route options – alignment A and alignment B.
Information about the proposals was made available online and included supporting
information in the form of factsheets and two reports: a transport options summary
and a route option assessment.2 The reports explained what other options had been
investigated and how TfL had arrived at the two proposed route options for a London
Overground extension. The proposals could also be viewed and commented upon at
a number of consultation events, including roadshow events and meetings with
residents associations.
1.4
Consultees were invited to give their views either by filling in an online questionnaire
or by responding via post or email. Paper copies of the consultation were available
on request, together with the questionnaire. All the documentation was available on
request in alternative formats such as large print, audio or another language.
1.5
The consultation was supported by a marketing campaign which included:










Sending a letter explaining the project and the consultation to 27,000
addresses in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
Sending over 42,000 emails about the consultation to Oyster users in the
Borough who had signed up for updates
Sending letters and emails to local, London wide and national statutory and
non-statutory stakeholder groups
Adverts in the local press, included in Appendix K
A press release, included in Appendix L
Organising two roadshow events; one at Barking Learning Library and one at
the Rivergate Centre, Barking Riverside
Organising and participating in five meetings with residents’ associations
The face to face distribution of 2,000 consultation leaflets in the borough
Tweeting updates on the TfL twitter account to alert/remind people about the
consultation and the roadshow events
The distribution of 2,000 consultation leaflets between Thames View and
Richard Carey primary schools
1
Details of the 2014 consultation are available at tfl.gov.uk/gospeloak-barking
2
The supporting documentation is available at tfl.gov.uk/barking-riverside-consult
4
1.6
In the consultation questionnaire TfL asked the following questions about the
proposals:






In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from
Barking to Barking Riverside?
Do you have a preferred alignment?
Do you have any comments to make about route option A?
Do you have any comments to make about route option B?
Do you have any other comments about the proposals?
Do you have any other comments about the consultation? (Clarity of
information, the supporting documents, roadshows, etc.)
1.7
The consultation generated 600 responses, including 22 stakeholder responses. 587
respondents expressed a view on the principle of the scheme and the result was
overwhelming positive, with 532 (90%) responding that they supported an extension
of the London Overground line from Barking to Barking Riverside in principle.
1.8
398 respondents answered the question regarding their preference for route option A
or route option B. 36 (9%) respondents said they preferred option A, while 211 (55%)
said they preferred option B; 110 respondents (28%) had no preference and 31 (8%)
did not support either option.
1.9
A comprehensive breakdown of these figures is given in section 6 of this report
(Analysis of consultation responses). The responses are reported on firstly as a
whole and then by those responding from within the London Borough of Barking and
Dagenham, which is where the extension would be built. In addition the responses
from residents from the Choats Road/Great Fleete Way area, with post codes
beginning IG11 0X_ are reported on. These responses have been drawn out as they
are the closest existing residents to any new viaduct with either option. A map
showing the area highlighted in red is included below.
Figure 1: Map highlighting properties in the Choats Road/Great Fleete Way area
5
1.10 Section 6 is supported by a comprehensive summary of all the comments received
during the consultation in Appendices A1, A2, A3 and A4. The main positive themes
which emerged are:



Support for the proposal because it would help the area to grow
Support for the proposal because it would improve transport accessibility
Statements of support for route option B.
1.11 Some of the key issues and concerns are summarised as:




The ability of Barking Station to accommodate extra passengers
How new train services would be accommodated on the Tilbury line alongside
existing c2c and freight services
Impacts to existing residents, particularly those living to the east of Renwick
Road who would be the nearest existing residents to any new viaduct
Comments on passive provision for a second station near Renwick Road; as
some asked for a second station to be delivered as part of the project.
1.12 Some consultees also asked about a further extension south of the River Thames, to
Thamesmead and Abbey Wood. While such an extension is outside the scope of the
project, comments are reflected in section 6 of this report (Analysis of consultation
responses) and section 7 (Responses from stakeholders). Full details of all the
consultation responses are available in Appendices A1 to A4. TfL responds to the
comments regarding an extension south of the river and other issues in Answers to
questions, which is included as Appendix M on page 64.
1.13 This report is published on the project website: tfl.gov.uk/barking-riverside-consult. In
addition, everyone who contacted TfL in response to the consultation with an email
or postal address will be notified that the consultation report is available and provided
with details of how to access the report.
1.14 Work on the project continues. A third round of public consultation is anticipated later
in 2015, when further views will be sought on the preferred route option. Subject to
the outcome of the consultation, TfL intends to apply for powers to build and operate
a railway extension through a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) in spring
2016.
1.15 Consultation and engagement on the proposals for a London Overground extension
is ongoing with interested parties, whose land or business operations may be
impacted by the scheme. Where residents may be affected by the proposals, TfL will
also continue to meet with resident associations. The project email address remains
active and TfL will continue to respond to any individual requests for information by
email, by phone or in writing. TfL’s contact information is:
 Freepost TfL Consultations
 e.bre@tfl.gov.uk
 t. 0343 222 1155
6
1.16
Report structure










Section 2 is a high level explanation of what was proposed
Section 3 provides the background to the scheme and explains why it is
necessary
Section 4 describes how TfL consulted
Section 5 explains who responded and which questions they answered
Section 6 explains what consultees had to say, introduces the quantitative and
qualitative approach taken in the analysis of comments, together with a
breakdown of the headline results. (The full results are reported in appendices
A1 to A4)
Section 7 provides a summary of stakeholder responses
Section 8 is the conclusion of the report
Section 9 describes the next steps subsequent to this consultation.
Appendices A1, A2, A3 and A4 provide a comprehensive summary of all
responses
The remaining appendices are a record of the consultation materials and
methods
7
2
Introduction
2.1 Transport for London (TfL) is considering a 4km extension (1.5km of new track) of the
London Overground Gospel Oak to Barking line. The extension would run from
Barking to the Barking Riverside development in the London Borough of Barking and
Dagenham.
2.2 TfL undertook a first round of public consultation on the outline proposals between 8
September 2014 and 19 October 2014. TfL received 714 responses and the result
was overwhelmingly positive, with 654 (91%) saying that in principle, they supported
an extension of the London Overground from Barking to Barking Riverside3. Following
the consultation, in the 2014 Autumn Statement the Government announced that HM
Treasury had agreed funding in principle for a London Overground extension to
Barking Riverside.
2.3 The extension would run on the existing Tilbury Loop line and then by a new section of
railway, to be built as a raised viaduct, heading south after the railway passes
underneath Renwick Road bridge to a new station in the heart of the Barking
Riverside development. Two route options were identified for how an extension would
continue from the Tilbury line into the development.
2.4 TfL held a second round of public consultation between 11 May 2015 and 28 June
2015. Views were again sought on the principle of an extension and also on the two
route options.
2.5 Route option A would run on two separate viaducts. The eastbound line towards
Barking Riverside would leave the Tilbury line after passing under Renwick Road
Bridge. It would then turn right and pass over the freight yard and Choats Road,
before dropping under the power lines and continuing into Barking Riverside. The
westbound line back towards Barking station would cross Choats Road on another
viaduct and curve left near the existing houses, joining the Tilbury line west of
Renwick Road bridge. This alignment would require fewer changes to the freight yard
railway infrastructure. Route option A is illustrated in figure 2 on page 9.
2.6 Route option B would run both lines in parallel along a single viaduct. The viaduct
would pass over the freight terminal and Choats Road before dropping under the
power lines and continuing into Barking Riverside. This alignment would tie-in to the
Tilbury line slightly further west and would require more changes to the freight yard.
However, by crossing Choats Road to the east on a single viaduct, it is possible to
increase the distance between the existing residential areas and the operational
railway. Route option B is illustrated in figure 3 on page 9.
2.7 A number of respondents to the 2014 public consultation asked whether a second
station could be provided between Barking station and the Barking Riverside
development.
3
A separate report on the 2014 consultation is available on our website tfl.gov.uk/gospeloak-barking.
8
Figure 2: Route Option A
Figure 3: Route Option B
2.8 Whilst a second station is outside the scope of the project, TfL has investigated
whether provision could be made for a station in the future, subject to passenger
demand and funding. TfL identified a potential location west of Renwick Road Bridge
with route option B. A station in the same area cannot be provided with route option A
9
because there would not be enough space between the two viaduct structures to
accommodate a platform on the tracks.
2.9 Both route options would see the London Overground switching from platform 1 to use
platforms 7 & 8 at Barking Station. Platform 1 would remain available to London
Overground trains to aid service recovery during periods of disruption. A new station
would be constructed at the end of the extension route in the Barking Riverside
development, serving both new and existing residents.
3
Background to the scheme
3.1
Barking Riverside is the largest housing development site in east London. It is part of
the London Riverside Opportunity Area and has planning permission for up to 10,800
new homes, new schools and local community infrastructure. The Greater London
Authority recently ran a public consultation on an Opportunity Area Planning
Framework (OAPF), which included proposals for Barking Riverside. More
information can be found on the Greater London Authority's website. This includes
the draft Masterplan for the development site.
3.2
As part of the planning process, a number of conditions were placed on the
development build out of the site:


No more than 1,500 residential units may be occupied before a Transport and
Works Act Order (TWAO) to build and operate a rail or light rail extension is
granted
No more than 4,000 residential units may be occupied before the railway is
operational
3.2
The original plan was designed around the extension of the Docklands Light Railway
(DLR) from Gallions Reach to Dagenham Dock, via Barking Riverside. DLR Limited
actively consulted key stakeholders in 2007 regarding possible route options, but
with an estimated capital cost of c£700m, the full extension of the DLR was
considered unaffordable and the scheme was cancelled by the Mayor of London in
2009.
3.3
Upon the cancellation of the DLR Dagenham Dock proposal, TfL examined a number
of alternative transport options to serve the Barking Riverside development. This
work concluded that, subject to consultation and further development, an extension
of the London Overground Gospel Oak to Barking service, from its current terminus
at Barking to a new station in the heart of Barking Riverside, was the optimal scheme
to enable the development of the area. More information on how this position was
reached is available in the Transport Options Summary report, which was included in
the spring 2015 consultation.
3.4
Following the decision to propose an extension of the London Overground, it was
important that those people living and working in the surrounding area, or those
interested in the planning of the Barking Riverside development should have the
opportunity to comment on the new proposal. Two opportunities for comment have
now been provided: the first during the early planning phase of the project and the
second, before deciding on a route alignment.
10
4
Methodology
Scope of consultation
4.1
The spring 2015 consultation was planned to seek people’s views on the principle of
an extension from Barking to Barking Riverside; understand the preferred route
alignment from the two route options and identify any local issues which could inform
the design and planning of the scheme.
4.2
TfL sought to include people living in and around the proposed development site,
including residents in Thames ward or the Choats Road areas, those along the line
of the route and people using Barking Station. TfL also consulted with key local
stakeholders along the Gospel Oak to Barking line, including the neighbouring
Boroughs of Newham, Waltham Forrest, Haringey, Hackney and Camden.
Additionally, any stakeholder or member of the public with a view on the proposals
was encouraged to participate in the consultation.
4.3
The consultation was to be open from 11 May 2015 to 21 June 2015. At a roadshow
on 15 June 2015 some residents from the Choats Road area told TfL that they had
not received a letter about the consultation and had not therefore been able to
respond. Although some residents in this area had already responded (22 out of a
final total of 43), TfL took the view that it would be appropriate to extend the
consultation period and associated activities. Accordingly, an additional meeting
was arranged with the local community for 23 June 2015. In addition a second letter
was delivered to addresses with post codes commencing IG11 0X_ between 20 and
22 June 2015, informing people again about the consultation and about the 23 June
2015 meeting. The closing date for the consultation was extended for all until 28
June 2015. The second letter is included as Appendix D.
Outside the scope of this consultation
4.4
The following topics were outside the scope of the spring 2015 consultation:






4.5
The limits of deviation within which the extension could be built, and the extent
of the land that may need to be used or acquired
Location of certain infrastructure such as overhead electrification
Any construction sites, routes or requirements
Any future extension of the proposed scheme, including south of the River
Thames
Any other complimentary transport interventions
Other conditions relating to the Barking Riverside development Masterplan
and planning permission
A further extension of the London Overground south of the River Thames is not part
of the scope of this project. However, the possibility of an extension in the future was
recognised in the consultation material because project works will not preclude the
possibility of an extension at a later date, subject to future passenger demand and
funding. Some consultees, including political stakeholders, took the opportunity to
express a view. These comments are included in the analysis of responses and will
be used by TfL to inform the ongoing development of the local transport network.
11
Consultation objectives
4.6
Public consultation forms part of the guidance on taking schemes through the
Transport and Works Act 1992 process. Consultation enables affected parties to
contribute to the development of a project at an early stage, improving the project
and avoiding unnecessary objections following submission of an application. This
approach is also consistent with TfL’s own consultation procedures and statutory
obligations in other parts of the business. The consultation sought to:





Remind people about the scheme and understand the level of support in
principle
Gather views on the route options and inform the decision-making process
Make clear the decision-making process and, the next steps
Highlight channels through which responses to the consultation could be sent,
and make participation easy and inclusive
Identify any significant unknown issues with the proposals and inform
consideration of possible mitigation measures
Consultation tools
4.7
A range of methods were adopted to ensure that members of the public and
stakeholders were aware of the consultation and how they could respond. The
consultation was hosted on the TfL Consultation Tool, a web based platform for
running consultations. Paper copies of the consultation and a questionnaire were
available on request to anyone who did not have access to the internet.
4.8
In recognition of the fact that the majority of beneficiaries from the railway extension
are the future residents of the Barking Riverside development, both consultations
had a wide catchment area, including the neighboring boroughs along the length of
the Gospel Oak – Barking line.
4.9
As part of a marketing campaign, a number of promotional activities were undertaken
to support the consultation and let people know how they could participate:










Sending a letter explaining the project and the consultation to 27,000
addresses in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
Sending over 42,000 emails about the consultation to Oyster users in the
Borough who had signed up for updates
Sending letters and emails to local, London wide and national statutory and
non-statutory stakeholder groups
Adverts in the local press, included in Appendix K
A press release, included in Appendix L
Organising two roadshow events; one at Barking Learning Library and one at
the Rivergate Centre, Barking Riverside
Organising and participating in five meetings with residents’ associations
The face to face distribution of 2,000 consultation leaflets in the borough
Tweeting updates on the TfL twitter account to alert/remind people about the
consultation and the roadshow events
The distribution of 2,000 consultation leaflets between Thames View and
Richard Carey primary schools
12
4.10 The primary means of collecting the views of consultees was via the Consultation
Tool, enabling participants to view the material and respond using an online survey.
Comments were also taken at roadshows, meetings and on feedback forms. The
consultation was supported by factsheets and two reports: a transport options
summary and a route option assessment4. The reports explained what other
opportunities had been investigated and how TfL had arrived at the two proposed
alignment options for a London Overground extension.
The online survey and questionnaire
4.11 The questions were structured to provide TfL with an understanding of the level of
support in principle for the London Overground extension. TfL also sought to
understand any preference for a particular route option and to capture comments
that could be used to inform the development of the project.
4.12 The questionnaire included the following questions:
About you
1. What is your name?
2. What is your email address?
3. What is your postcode?
4. If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group,
please provide us with a name.
5. Please tell us more about you. (Where consultees local, did they use Barking
station etc)
6. How did you hear about the consultation?
About the proposals
7. In principle, do you support an extension of the London Overground line from
Barking to Barking Riverside?
8. Do you have a preferred alignment?
9. Do you have any comments to make about route option A?
10. Do you have any comments to make about route option B?
11. Do you have any other comments about the proposals?
12. Do you have any comments about the consultation? (Clarity of information,
the supporting documents, roadshows etc
13. Would you like to continue to receive updates about this proposal? Y/N
4.13
4
Responses submitted using the online survey received an automated
acknowledgement. Everyone who contacted TfL as part of the consultation, with an
email or postal address, will be notified that the report is available and directed to the
website.
This information is available on the project website: tfl.gov.uk/barking-riverside-consult
13
5
5.1.
5.2
Overview of consultation responses
Who responded?
The consultation generated 600 responses, including 22 received from stakeholders
or interest groups. 94% (564) of the responses were entered online and 6% (36)
were received by email, post or at an exhibition. There were eight instances of
duplicate responses. The duplicates were consolidated to give an individual
response.
To understand the type of respondent and their relationship with the proposed
scheme, consultees were asked to respond to a series of statements under the
heading “Tell us more about you”. Figure 4 shows the results. All respondents could
choose more than one answer if applicable.
Figure 4: Responses received for the question “Tell us more about you”.
Tell us more about you
I live near the Barking Riverside development or
Thames ward
I work near the Barking Riverside development
I use the Gospel Oak to Barking London Overground
line regularly
I use Barking station regularly
I live near the existing Tilbury line
5.3.
Number of
respondents
%
221
37%
62
157
10%
26%
340
57
57%
10%
How many people answered each question?
Not every respondent answered every question; of the 600 who responded:

588 responded to Question 7: In principle, do you support an extension of the
London Overground line from Barking to Barking Riverside?

398 responded to Question 8: Do you have a preferred alignment?

199 responded to Question 9: Do you have any comments to make about
route option A?

286 responded to Question 10: Do you have any comments to make about
route option B?

282 responded to Question 11: Do you have any other comments about the
proposals?

101 responded to Question 12: Do you have any comments about the
consultation? (Clarity of information, the supporting documents, roadshows
etc

569 responded to Question 13: Would you like to continue to receive updates
about this proposal? Y/N
14
5.4
5.5
Geography of respondents
579 (97%) of the respondents provided their full or partial home postcode, with 492
of these being successfully mapped within the Greater London area. There were 109
responses from the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham where Barking
Riverside is situated. There were 43 responses from respondents who had a
postcode starting with IG11 0X_; these residents are the closest existing residents to
the proposed route options.
How did they hear about the consultation?
To understand how news about the consultation was received, respondents were
asked how they heard about the consultation. Figure 5 indicates the information
channels through which respondents heard about the consultation.
Figure 5: Information channels through which respondents heard about the consultation.
All respondents
Information Channel
Received an email from TfL
Received a letter from TfL
Saw an advert on the TfL
website
Read about it in the press
Through social media
Word of mouth
Other
5
Number of
respondents
352
45
34
61%
8%
6%
30
42
43
34
5%
7%
7%
6%
%
London Borough of
Barking and
Dagenham
Number of
%
respondents
186
65%
41
14%
4
1%
10
10
21
15
3%
3%
7%
5%
IG11 0X_
Number of
respondents
15
215
0
36%
50%
0%
2
0
2
2
5%
0%
5%
5%
%
Of whom, eight replied before 20 June 2015.
15
6
Analysis of consultation responses
Question 7
6.1.
Question 7 asked “In principle, do you support an extension of the London
Overground line from Barking to Barking Riverside?” To understand the level of
support, respondents were given three answers from which to choose:
Yes
No
Not sure
6.2
- in principle the respondent supports the proposed extension
- the respondent does not support the proposed extension
- the respondent is not fully in support, or has some concerns
Support for the scheme was high, with 532 respondents (90%) stating that in
principle they support an extension of the London Overground line from Barking to
Barking Riverside. 29 (5%) stated that they do not support the proposal and 27 (5%)
stated that they were unsure. Figure 6 displays the level of support for the scheme.
Figure 6: Proportion of support and opposition to the proposed London Overground extension.
16
6.3
Figure 7 below shows the level of support for the proposed London Overground
extension from all respondents, from those within the London Borough of Barking
and Dagenham and from those with a postcode starting with IG11 0X_. The IG11
0X_ postcode group live in the Choats Road area and are the closest existing
residents to any new railway viaduct.
6.4
It is evident that the level of support within the London Borough of Barking and
Dagenham is similar to the overall level support for the project. The support was
lower in postcodes starting IG11 0X_ but still very positive with 79% (33) expressing
support for the scheme, 12% (5) expressing opposition and 10% (4) stating that they
were not sure.
Figure 7: Proportion of support and opposition to the proposed London Overground extension from
all respondents, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham residents, and residents with postcodes
starting with IG11 0X.
6.5
Figure 8 on page 18 shows the distribution of respondents across Greater London
and their stated level of support for the London Overground extension. Figure 9 on
page 19 shows the distribution of respondents across the London Borough of
Barking and Dagenham and their stated level of support for the London Overground
extension.
17
Figure 8: The distribution of respondents across Greater London and their stated level of support for the London Overground extension.
18
Figure 9: The distribution of respondents across Barking and Dagenham and their stated level of support for the London Overground extension.
19
Question 8
6.6
Question 8 asked “Do you have a preferred alignment?” To understand the level of
preference for the two proposed route options, respondents were given four answers
from which to choose:
I prefer option A
I prefer option B
I have no preference
Neither
6.7
Due to technical error, question 8 was omitted from the consultation when it was
initially uploaded on the website on 11 May. The question was correctly uploaded on
12 May. Those who had already responded to the consultation and provided contact
details were contacted again to give them an opportunity to respond to this question.
6.8
The majority of respondents preferred route option B (55%, 221), while 9% (36)
stated preference for route option A. A further 28% of respondents (110) had no
preference, while 8% (31) did not support either option. Figure 10 displays the level
of preference for the two options.
Figure 10: Level of preference of respondents towards option A and option B.
20
6.9
Figure 11 shows the level of preference towards option A and option B for all
respondents, all those from within the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
and those specifically with a postcode starting IG11 0X_. While the level of
preference for option A is broadly similar in percentage terms across the groups,
there is a higher level of opposition (30%) towards either option by respondents with
postcodes starting IG11 0X_.
Figure 11: Level of preference of respondents towards option A and option B
6.10
Figure 12 on page 22 shows the distribution of respondents across Greater London
and their stated level of preference towards option A and option B. Figure 13 on
page 23 shows the distribution of respondents across the London Borough of
Barking and Dagenham and their stated level of preference towards option A and
option B.
21
Figure 12: The distribution of respondents across Greater London and their stated level of preference towards option A and option B.
22
Figure 13: The distribution of respondents across Barking and Dagenham their stated level of preference towards option A and option B.
23
Question 9
6.11
Question 9 asked “Do you have any comments to make about route A?” 199
respondents raised 59 comments.
6.12
A code framework was devised which included several overall themes and, within
those themes, identified specific comments. Each response to question 9 was coded
to one or more codes as appropriate. For example, the consultation received
responses about congestion concerns. These comments were further divided by
transport mode/area (bus, traffic, train, London Underground, parking, station
capacity), and by comments related to current or future congestion.
6.13
The key issues and commonly mentioned themes for each question are discussed in
this chapter. A full breakdown of all the codes for Question 9 can be found in
Appendix A1 on page 36.
6.14
Figure 14 shows the top five comments and themes raised from all respondents. It
was evident that the lack of flexibility to provide an additional station was a key factor
and tended to cause respondents to favour route option B. There was a high level of
concern in relation to the potential negative impact on existing property and for
residents in the area. A number of respondents gave a general statement of support
for option A while many mentioned the lower cost/cost effectiveness of route option
A.
Figure 14: Responses to Question 9 -Do you have any comments to make about route A?
Top five comments for Question 9
Negative comment: Lack of flexibility to
provide an additional station
Statement of preference towards option B
Negative comment: Concern due to negative
impact to property/residents
General statement of support for option A
Positive comment: Lower cost/Cost effective
6.15
Number of
comments
50
36
26
21
18
Comments were broken down further to identify any particular issues in the Choats
Road area, as residents in this location would be the closest existing residents to any
new viaduct structure. Figure 15 on page 25 shows the top five comments and
themes raised by respondents with postcodes beginning IG11 0X_.
24
Figure 15: Responses to Question 9 (Do you have any comments to make about route A?) by
respondents with postcodes IG11 0X_
Top five comments for Question 9 by
respondents with postcodes IG11 0X_
Negative comment: Concern due to
negative impact to property/residents
Negative comment: Lack of flexibility to
provide an additional station
Statement of preference towards option B
Negative comment: Negative
environmental impact/Failure to benefit
the environment
Positive comment: Reduced journey time
Number of
comments
11
3
3
3
2
Question 10
6.16
Question 10 asked “Do you have any comments to make about route option B?” 286
respondents raised 72 comments.
6.17
Similarly to Question 9, responses to question 10 were coded to one or more codes
as appropriate. The code framework included several overall themes and captured
specific comments within these themes.
6.18
The key issues and commonly mentioned themes for each question are discussed in
this chapter. A full breakdown of all the codes for Question 10 can be found in
Appendix F.
6.19
Figure 15 shows the top five comments and themes raised. The majority of
respondents to Question 10 believed that route option B had the advantage over
option A because it allowed passive provision for a second station. A high number of
respondents stated their preference towards route option B and/or their general
support for option B. Responses for option B also frequently commented upon the
reduced impact on existing property and for residents in the area; and improved
transport links provided by route option B.
Figure 15: Responses to Question 10 - Do you have any comments to make about route option B?
Top five comments for Question 10
Positive comment: Possibility of an additional
station/Longsighted approach/Flexible
Statement of preference towards option B
Positive comment: Less impact to property/residents than
option A
General statement of support for option B
Positive comment: Improved transport links
Number of
comments
151
105
26
19
14
25
6.20
Figure 17 shows the top seven comments and themes raised by respondents with
postcodes beginning IG11 0X_. Seven comments are shown instead of five because
the pool of responses was smaller and it was more difficult to identify a top five. A
high number of residents within the IG11 0X_ area stated preference towards option
B. Similar to all respondents, IG11 0X_ residents highlighted the benefit of the
possibility of an additional station and the flexibility it could offer.
Figure 17: Top seven comments raised for Question 10 (do you have any comments to make about
route option B?) by respondents with postcodes IG11 0X-
Top seven comments for Question 10 by respondents with
postcodes IG11 0X_
Statement of preference towards option B
Positive comment: Possibility of an additional station/Longsighted
approach/Flexible
Positive comment: Less impact to property/residents than option A
Negative comment: Concern due to negative impact to
property/residents
Negative comment: Negative environmental impact/Failure to
benefit the environment
General statement of support for option B
General statement of opposition to option B
Number of
comments
12
8
4
4
2
2
2
Question 11
6.21
Question 11 asked “Do you have any other comments about the proposals?” 282
respondents raised 96 comments.
6.22
Similarly to Questions 9 and 10, responses to question 11 were coded to one or
more codes. The code framework included several overall themes and, within these,
specific comments.
6.23
The key issues and commonly mentioned themes for each question are discussed in
this section. A full breakdown of the codes for Question 11 can be found in Appendix
G.
6.24
Figure 18 on page 27 shows the top ten comments and themes raised. It was
evident that there is a large amount of general support for the scheme and many
respondents would like the scheme to be delivered quickly. An extension of the
London Overground south of the river and a DLR extension to Barking Riverside
were frequently requested. A large number of positive comments stated that the
scheme would improve public transport in the area and aid regeneration. Concerns
were frequently raised for current and future congestion on the trains, and current
congestion at Barking station. Some respondents said a second station should be
delivered as part of the scheme.
26
Figure 18: Responses to question 11 - Do you have any other comments about the proposals?
Top ten comments for Question 11
General support for the scheme/Scheme required in area
Suggestion for the extension of the London Overground south
of the river (e.g. Thamesmead/Abbey Wood)
Speed up delivery of the scheme/Build as soon as possible
Positive comment: Will improve public transport in the area
Concern about current crowding conditions on trains
A second station is needed as part of the scheme
Suggestion for the extension of the DLR to Barking Riverside
Concerns raised about overcrowding at Barking station
(current)
Construct Barking Riverside station in a way that allows future
London Overground extension south of the river/DLR
Extension
Positive comment: Aids regeneration of the local
area/Supports Development
Concern about future crowding conditions on trains
6.25
Number of
comments
48
37
26
24
21
19
15
15
14
13
13
Figure 19 shows the top six comments and themes raised by respondents with
postcodes beginning IG11 0X_. Six comments are shown instead of five because the
pool of responses was smaller and it was more difficult to identify a top five.
Figure 19: Top six comments raised for question 11 by respondents with postcodes IG11 0X-
Top six comments for Question 11 by respondents with
postcodes IG11 0X_
Speed up delivery of the scheme/Build as soon as possible
Negative comment: Concern about negative impact to
property/residents due to proximity of proposed route option
General support for the scheme/Scheme required in area
Positive comment: Will improve public transport in the area
Negative comment: Negative environmental impact/Failure to
benefit the environment
Positive comment: Benefits residents
Number of
comments
6
6
4
4
3
3
Question 12
6.26
Question 12 asked “Do you have any comments about the consultation? (Clarity of
information, the supporting documents, roadshows etc)”. This question was asked to
help evaluate the effectiveness of the consultation and make improvements for
future consultations undertaken by TfL. 101 respondents raised 34 comments.
27
6.27
Question 12 followed the same analysis method as questions 9, 10 and 11, with a
coding framework used to group the comments. Only the most frequently mentioned
themes and comments for each question are mentioned in this report. A full
breakdown of the codes for Question 12 can be found in Appendix H.
6.28
Figure 20 shows the top five comments and themes raised in relation to the
consultation material and process. The majority of respondents gave positive
feedback, stating that the consultation material was clear and informative. Some
respondents criticised the maps and communication with affected parties and it was
suggested that publicity levels surrounding the consultation could have been
increased.
Figure 20: Top five responses to Question 12 - Do you have any other comments about the
consultation?
Top five comments for Question 12
Clear and informative material
General positive comment
Negative comment in relation to maps
Poor communication with affected parties
Suggestions: Increased publicity
Number of
comments
20
9
6
5
5
28
7
Responses from stakeholders
The following comments from stakeholders have been summarised.
7.1
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
The Council welcomes the opportunity to comment on the route options.
Enabling Regeneration - The provision of the London Overground extension is
essential to facilitate the full development of Barking Riverside, providing much
needed additional, affordable housing for the borough and for London.
Facilitating Economic Growth – It is estimated that a rail link and associated
development would generate around 6,000 jobs (3,500 temporary construction jobs
and 2,500 permanent jobs in servicing the area), whilst the full build out of homes is
estimated to increase local retail spend by circa £47m per year by 2031. The
delivery of Barking Riverside is also expected to maximise local employment
opportunities and will help improve skills, making Barking and Dagenham an
aspirational place to live.
Improved Connectivity - The extension of the London Overground to Barking
Riverside would provide a much needed link to Central London (via interchange at
Barking) and to North London and would result in a significantly reduced journey
times for people living and working in the area.
Route Options - The Council’s preferred option for the extension is route alignment B
which has a number of key advantages, including:


Positioning the line further to the east of existing housing located along
Choats Road
Allowing for the provision of a second rail station. We think the station should
be located further west as close to Movers Lane as possible to provide
maximum benefit to Thames View residents. New stations, well as Barking
Station, should be allocated within a new zone 3/4 on TfL’s London rail and
tube map
Future Expansion - The Council would like to take this opportunity to reiterate its
support for the further extension south of the river Thames to Abbey Wood station in
Bexley and is keen to work with TfL to help develop the case for this.
The Council supports provision being retained for a future Docklands Light Railway
line through Barking Riverside from Beckton to supplement the capacity provided by
the London Overground extension and provide links to the Royal Docks growth area.
7.2
London Borough of Redbridge
The Council fully supports this scheme as it will bring greater access to jobs and
retail opportunities. The Council has no alignment preference.
29
7.3
London Borough of Bexley
The Council continues to support in principle the proposal to extend the Gospel OakBarking Overground Line to serve Barking Reach.
This support is conditional on passive provision being made for a later connection
under the Thames into the London Borough of Bexley – in order to improve the
accessibility and connectivity of the north of the borough.
From the information available, it seems that the choice of options would have no
material effect on Bexley or the viability of a further extension to south London. On
that assumption, the Council has no preference on the route options A or B.
7.4
London Borough of Havering
The Council has reviewed the proposals and has no objections. This extension will
help to stimulate grown in this part of the London Riverside Opportunity Area.
The Council notes that whilst TfL does not believe the C2C timetable will be
adversely affected by the proposals, changes may have to be made to accommodate
the 4tph London Overground to Barking Riverside Service. The Council wishes to be
involved in any discussions on timetable options.
London Riverside is the largest regeneration opportunity in the Thames Gateway and
“Havering Riverside” could generate up to 7,000 new jobs and 4,000 new homes.
The Council is of the view that an increase in capacity through improved train
frequency along Essex Thameside is vital to attract jobs and residents to the area.
The Council is working very closely with Network Rail, Department for Transport
and TfL on progressing a new station at Beam Park, which is part of the franchise
agreement with c2c. The new station will need to be incorporated into any new
operating timetable in the future.
7.5
London Borough of Newham
The London Borough of Newham is supportive of the proposals for a London
Overground extension to Barking Riverside. An extension would ensure further
development of the Barking area, including house building and associated
infrastructure, and will help meet these population demands.
7.6
Royal Borough of Greenwich
The Royal Borough welcomes the proposed extension of the London Overground to
Barking Riverside.
The Royal Borough believes that a package of river crossings, with integrated public
transport, is needed in south and east London to support growth and development.
The extension of the London Overground from Barking Riverside south of the river to
Thamesmead and Abbey Wood would also create the opportunity to integrate the
railway into the existing network in a way that could create an extended outer orbital
route around London. It should not preclude the opportunity to further extend the
DLR network to south London. The Royal Borough urges TfL to accelerate progress
on work being undertaking to demonstrate the benefits of extending the line south of
30
the river and publish the outputs from that work at the earliest opportunity.
Route options - The Royal Borough is of the view that:


7.7
With either option, the new terminus should be designed so as to
accommodate the future extension to Thamesmead and Abbey Wood
A decision on alignment A or B should be consistent with the views of the
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
Valerie Shawcross AM, (Lambeth and Southwark) and London Assembly
Labour Group
In principal, London Assembly Labour Group supports an extension of the London
Overground line from Barking to Barking Riverside. We support option B, as we
believe we need to keep the option to have an intermediate station in the future.
We are disappointed that the intermediate station will not be progressed as part of
the current scheme. We are concerned that the current residents of the area will not
see their own transport options expanded by the creation of an intermediate station.
Furthermore we are disappointed that the scheme will not be extended south of the
river. We note your response to the consultation states that it may be desirable to
further extend the scheme in the future, however it does not go on to explain why it is
not desirable to do so now. We are concerned that the proposed design of the
Barking Riverside station could mean that an extension south of the river is
untenable.
7.8
John Biggs AM, (City and East) and London Assembly Labour Group
Mr Biggs supports the scheme in principle and prefers alignment B, as it allows for
passive provision for a second station.
Mr Biggs is concerned that any alignment would not preclude a cross-river extension
in the future. He requires clarification as to whether such a route is safeguarded both
in land use and design facilitating a tunnel, preferably with gradients suitable for
freight movements.
7.9
c2c Rail
c2c's key concern with Option A is that it makes no provision for a future new station.
Of the two routes proposed by TfL in this consultation, Option B is the preferred
route.
Option B makes passive provision for a future station, and many previous transport
infrastructure schemes have demonstrated the importance of such foresight.
Importantly, the location of this potential future station would be on the new
extension, not the existing Tilbury line. The issues surrounding loading levels on c2c
services and the need for work at existing train stations are ongoing.
31
7.10
DB Schenker
DB Schenker own and operate rail freight facilities in the Barking area that would
potentially be impacted by these proposals. We are developing a multimodal
Eurohub at Barking. It will be the only rail-linked facility of its type, crucially
connected to HS1 and the UK rail network.
When you also take the planned growth of rail freight services to and from London
Gateway port into account, it is evident that without proper planning and enhanced
rail freight infrastructure around TfL’s proposed extension, there will be capacity
and performance risks for all operators.
DB Schenker supports the proposal of Network Rail for a new yard at Ripple Lane
West Yard.
The Barking flyover poses challenges for the future accommodation of anticipated
additional freight Thameside / cross London traffic growth in the coming 5-10 years.
For this reason, it is imperative that the simultaneous development of a fit for
purpose freight regulation facility on the Ripple Lane West Yard footprint be an
integral component of this scheme.
7.11
Rail Freight Group
Rail Freight Group prefers option B, as it is less intrusive on the freight yard.
We are concerned to ensure that, whichever option is taken, the operation of the
freight yard is not adversely affected, and that the development aligns with the
separate proposals to enhance the yard. We understand that discussions with
Network Rail have started, and we would urge TfL to continue this in pursuit of an
option and funding solution that meets all needs.
7.12
Campaign for Better Transport
We prefer option B, as it provides passive provision for a station at Renwick Road. It
is important to site the station in Barking Riverside at a level which would make it
possible to extend the London Overground south of the Thames in the future.
7.13
Railfuture, London & South East Branch
Railfuture support an extension in principle and prefer option B.
An important step in developing an outer orbital rail network, providing adequate
provision is made for crossing the Thames for rail connections south of the river.
7.14
Historic England
Historic England/the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) have
reviewed the documentation, and able to advise you as follows.
Archaeology
As per our advice on 15th September 2015 we note that both route options would
pass over an area of significant buried archaeological potential connected with the
32
prehistoric landscape. Any discoveries, may, depending on the level of preservation,
be of national importance.
There is very high potential that such material could be removed by development
which requires foundations at depth or piling. In order to minimise specific impacts on
the archaeological resource an evaluative phase of work, which closely models the
geo-archaeological and archaeological deposits within the two preferred routes and
stations, will be necessary.
Built Heritage
Having reviewed the Historic Environment Record, I can advise you that there are no
listed buildings or conservation areas on the line of the proposed route.
7.15
Natural England
Natural England is the Government agency that works to conserve and enhance
biodiversity and landscapes, promote access to the natural environment, and
contribute to the way natural resources are managed so that they can be enjoyed
now and by future generations. The approach and methodology proposed under the
Transport and Works Act 1992 are in line with the advice that would be offered by
Natural England. The issues and areas covered are those that Natural England
would expect to see included within the Environmental Statement, as part of the
project’s application for powers. Natural England has considered the information
supplied in the public consultation and confirms it has no additional comment to
make at this stage.
7.17
Inland Waterways Association
The Inland Waterways Association supports an extension in principle and has no
preference on the alignment options.
7.18
Thames Water
Thames Water supports in principle the proposal for an extension of the London
Overground to Barking Riverside. Thames Water does not wish to express a
preference for either of the proposed alignments as set out in the consultation.
Once the exact location of the proposed Overground Extension is known, Thames
Water will need to establish whether any of its water or sewerage infrastructure
assets may be affected. The protection of Thames Water’s assets from a vibration
perspective will also need to be considered when piling is to be used for
construction.
7.19
Living Streets
Living Streets has a Service Level Agreement (SLA) with the London Borough of
Barking and Dagenham whereby we jointly deliver projects which increase the
walking rate in the borough, make streets better for walking, and ensure that walking
remains high on agendas such as transport, health and regeneration. We are
submitting our response to this second Barking Riverside London Overground
Extension consultation as part of our SLA.
33
Living Streets responded to the previous consultation in 2014, and we are grateful
that our comments regarding the general ambition of the London Overground
extension and our concerns regarding the location of the station have been
acknowledged in TfL’s response to the points raised in the 2014 consultation.
Route Options
Living Streets would be much more inclined to support alignment B; since this option
will have a reduced impact on Choats Road as a pedestrian and cyclist route, and
would also allow for a new station to be potentially built in the future – which we
recommended in the previous consultation.
Impact of Viaducts
The impact of the viaducts on the pedestrian environment forms one of our prime
concerns. Viaducts have the potential to make the route considerably less friendly for
pedestrians if done incorrectly.
We recommend that the arch of the viaduct should be well lit and should consist of
one arch. We also hope that proposed designs for the viaduct would not reduce the
width of the footpath. This will enable more comfortable space sharing by
pedestrians and cyclists. Pigeon roost sites should be designed out to prevent
fouling.
Potential of a New Station
One of the points we raised in the previous consultation was the need for a second
station in the area. As such, we are pleased that alignment B is being put forward for
consultation.
7.20
London Fire Brigade
The proposed site has been visited and both route alignment options A and B have
been assessed and neither will have any impact on our response to this area.
7.21
Barking and Dagenham Chamber of Commerce
We support an extension in principle and prefer alignment option B. It would help to
have a second station, as the passenger numbers will only increase in the area. We
should like to see forward planning, as things take quite some time to come to
fruition.
7.22
Barking – Gospel Oak Rail User Group
BGORUG supports alignment option B, as it provides passive provision for a second
station, which would serve residents at Thames View estate. However they express
reservations on the proposals:
1. Without a DLR extension, they advocate an extension of the Hammersmith and City
London Underground line. Reasons include a perceived lower impact on passengers
interchanging at Barking station
2. The impact an extension would have to the rest of the London Overground network,
with a perceived constraint at Gospel Oak
3. They suggest an alternative location for a potential second London Overground
station between the west end of Wivenhoe Road and Abridge Way, allowing
improved access from Thames View Estate
34
8
Conclusion
8.1
TfL believes that to support the level of housing development required at Barking
Riverside, an extension of the London Overground is clearly required.
8.2
90% of respondents to the consultation agree in principle to an extension of the
London Overground. 55% of people who expressed a preference said they preferred
route option B.
8.3
TfL will develop route option B in readiness for a TWAO application for powers to
construct and operate a railway extension.
8.4
The consultation drew further attention to a number of issues which need to be
addressed prior to the application. These were also raised in the 2014 consultation
and TfL continues to seek a resolution, though design progression and through
continuous engagement with the affected parties. Those issues are:
 Barking station’s ability to accommodate the expected additional passengers
using an Overground train from Barking Riverside
 Mitigation of any impact on rail and freight services
 Mitigation of the impact on local residents
 Construction impacts
9
Next steps
9.1
TfL will also continue to engage with local residents, businesses and landowners and
involve them in the progress of the proposals, seeking ways to mitigate any impact
where practicable. TfL will continue to liaise with rail and freight operators and
explore methods of accommodating a London Overground extension with existing
services.
9.2
TfL will hold a third round of public consultation later in 2015, when further views will
be sought on the preferred route option. Subject to the outcome of the consultation,
TfL intends to apply for powers to build and operate a railway extension through a
TWAO in spring 2016. If approved by the Secretary of State for Transport,
construction would begin in 2017 with trains running by the end of 2020.
35
Appendix A1 – Comments raised for Question 9
Do you have any comments to make about route option A?
Favoured option
Prefer Option B
Prefer this option (Option A)
No preference
Do not approve of either option but prefer this one (Option A)
Support
Support this option
Support the scheme as a whole/both options
Station needed in Barking Riverside as soon as possible
Oppose
Oppose this option (Option A)
Oppose the scheme as a whole
Positive comments
Lower cost/Cost effective
Least impact on existing line/Less disruptive
Provides benefits
Improved transport links
Reduced journey time
Provides benefits for local residents
Provides benefits for local workforce
Simple
Negative comments/concerns
Lack of flexibility to provide an additional station
Impact to property/residents
Benefits new/future residents only rather than existing residents
Requires construction of two separate viaducts
Short-sighted approach failing to deliver requirements
Negative environmental impact/Fails to benefit the environment
Impact on C2C line
Negative economic impact/Fails to benefit the economy
Fails to serve one side of Barking Riverside
Location of new station
Cost
Fails to serve the south of the river
36
14
4
1
21
4
2
12
1
18
5
4
3
3
2
1
1
50
26
7
7
6
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
36
Barking station
Concerns about overcrowding at Barking station (future)
Negative conditions (current)
Congestion concern
Train (current)
Train (future)
Bus (current)
Construction
LO service information
Negative impact on current journeys
Suggestions
Further extension of London Overground to Thamesmead
Improvements to Barking station
Build as soon as possible
Extend carriage length
Provision in station
Build option A and option B
Different location for second station suggested
DLR extension to Barking riverside
Improve London Overground platforms
Increase London Overground frequency
North-South Train link serving Erith
River boat
Track layout
Other
No significant comment
3
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
4
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
37
Appendix A2 – Comments raised for Question 10
Do you have any comments to make about route option B?
Favoured option
Prefer this option (Option B)
No preference
Support
Support this option
Support the scheme as a whole/both options
Station needed in Barking Riverside as soon as possible
Condition of support
Intermediate station included
Passive provision for intermediate station provided
No speed restriction implemented
Oppose
Oppose this option
Oppose the scheme as a whole
Positive comment
Possibility of an additional station/Longsighted approach/Flexible/Allows for
capacity growth
Less impact to property/residents
Improved transport links
Provides benefit for local residents
Positive economic impact/Potential to benefit the economy
Less environmental impact
Single viaduct
Supports future development of the area
Benefits existing residents
Reduced journey times
Cost effective
Provides benefits
Less impact (general)
No impact on C2C services/freight trains
Reduced negative impact on pedestrians/cyclists
Design
Impact on C2C/Freight line
Impact to property/residents
Cost (higher)
Passive second station provision not needed
Design
Environmental impact
Fails to serve one side of Barking Riverside
105
6
19
2
1
13
5
1
4
1
151
26
14
11
10
4
4
4
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
7
5
3
3
2
2
2
38
Barking Station
Concerns about overcrowding at Barking station (future)
Improvements to overcrowding at Barking station (future)
Negative conditions (current)
Congestion concern
Train (future)
Traffic (current)
Bus (current)
Train (current)
Parking (future)
Congestion improvement
Traffic (future)
Bus (future)
London Overground line
Negative conditions (current)
Clarification/Information requested
Cost-benefit analysis
Road building and its impact on the environment
Second station location
Suggestions
Further extension of London Overground to Thamesmead
Build new station straight away/soon after extension opens
Build as soon as possible
DLR extension to Barking Riverside
3rd station required
C2C services should also use the additional stop
Improve London Overground platforms
Improvements to Barking station
Alignment 6 from the options report should be pursued
Alternative scheme design
Extend carriage length
North-South Train link serving Erith
Pedestrian improvements
River boat
Second station location
Single track only
Suggested route for C2C service
Other
No significant comment
1
1
1
5
4
2
2
1
3
1
1
4
2
2
7
5
4
4
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
39
Appendix A3 – Comments raised for Question 11
Do you have any other comments about the proposals?
Favoured option
Prefer Option B
No preference
Positive comments
Support scheme/Scheme required in area
Improved public transport in the local area
Aids regeneration of the local area/Supports Development
Benefits businesses/economy
Benefits residents
Reduced journey times
Lengthened trains
General
Electrification of line needed
Benefits environment
Negative comments/concerns
Impact to property/residents
Location of new station
Better transport links in the area needed before proposed timing
Environmental impact
Impact on C2C/Freight line
Short-sighted approach
Benefits new/future residents only rather than existing residents
Connection to Barking already provided by bus
Cost of scheme
Housing development is on a floodplain
No improvement South of the river (.e.g. Thamesmead)
Oppose scheme
Cost of travel in London
Barking and Dagenham does not have the infrastructure to support scheme
Worsen service on existing London Overground line
Housing development
Neutral comments
No impact/Neutral
Second station
Second station is essential
Second station should not be provided
11
5
48
24
13
11
10
6
4
3
2
1
6
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
19
1
40
Barking Station
Concerns about overcrowding at Barking station (current)
Concerns about overcrowding at Barking station (future)
Improvements to overcrowding at Barking station (future)
Suggestion for use of platforms at Barking station
Congestion concern
Train (current)
Train (future)
Traffic (current)
Bus (current)
Traffic (future)
Underground (current)
Mile End station (current)
Unspecified (future)
Congestion improvement
Traffic (future)
Clarification/Information requested
Cost-benefit analysis
Timescales of completion
Zone of the new station
Grade separation of Option B junction
Exact route
Road layout
Noise levels for residents
Extensions suggested
Extension of Overground south of the river (.e.g. Thamesmead/Abbey Wood)
Extension of DLR to Barking Riverside
Extension of Hammersmith and City Line to Barking Riverside
Extension of London Underground to Barking Riverside
Extension of Overground to Grays/Overground to replace C2C to Grays
Connect Barking Riverside station with existing Overground and national rail
services
Extension of Overground beyond Gospel Oak (.e.g. Clapham Junction)
Extension of Overground eastward from Barking riverside (.e.g.
Upminster/Tilbury line)
Extension of Overground to Goodmayes Park
Request for generic extensions to Barking Riverside
Extension of Overground westwards (.e.g. Beckton/Galleons reach)
Extension of Jubilee line to Thamesmead
Extension of Overground to North East (.e.g. Higham)
Extension of Overground to Stratford (connecting with Barking Riverside)
15
12
2
2
21
13
5
4
3
2
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
37
15
5
5
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
41
Suggestions
Speed up delivery of the scheme/Build as soon as possible
Construct Barking Riverside station in a way that allows a future London
Overground extension South of the river/DLR Extension
Increase train frequency further
Extend the length of the trains
Additional bus services serving the development
Improvements to Barking station
Extend (expand) bus network
Improve East London's public transport
Design of Barking Riverside station
Increase frequency of C2C services
Increase platform length
Second station location
Access improvements (road and pedestrian)
Cross river footbridge
Cycle provision
Developers to pay funding contribution
Divert funds to Hillingdon/Bromley/Bexley
Double track
Geo-archaeological and Archaeological investigations may be necessary
Improve connections to Barking station
Improve Overground platforms
Install a station at Renwick road before Barking Riverside station
Retail provision in the new station
Riverboat extension
Safeguard additional land so that a new section of track can be created so
that Overground trains do not need to use the Tilbury line
Safeguard land for south of the river extension
Viaduct environment design
Other
Comment not related to this scheme directly
Meaning of statement unclear
No significant comment
26
14
8
7
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
2
42
Appendix A4 – Comments raised for Question 12
Do you have any comments about the consultation? (Clarity of information, the
supporting documents, roadshows etc).
Positive comments
Clear and informative
General
Maps
Public information days
Communication
Email content
Online content
Supporting documents
Responsive to public views
Negative comments/concerns
Maps
Poor communication with affected parties
Decision made before consultation
Confusing
Public information days
Insufficient information provided
Bias
Email link
Letter content unclear
Website
Clarification/Information requested
DLR option information
Progress updates
Supporting information
Cost
Images
Second station information
Suggestions
More publicity required
Information should be sent to local addresses
Quick consultation
Alternative communication methods
Continued email updates
More engagement required
More flexible times and dates
Other
Comment not related to the consultation material
No significant comment
20
9
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
6
5
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
5
3
2
1
1
1
1
23
8
43
Appendix B – Copy of the consultation letter
44
Appendix C – Letter distribution area
45
Appendix D – 19 June letter to Choats Road (IG11 0X_)
46
Appendix E – Letter to Stakeholders
47
Appendix F – Email to Stakeholders
Have your say on a London Overground extension to Barking Riverside
I am writing because we would like to know what you think about Transport for London’s proposals
to extend the Gospel Oak to Barking rail line to the Barking Riverside development. An extension
would help enable the delivery of up to 10,800 new homes, many of which would be affordable, as
well as a new school and healthcare facilities.
Last autumn we introduced the scheme and asked people for their initial views. The response was
overwhelming positive, with 90% of respondents replying that they supported an extension in
principle. A report on the results of the 2014 consultation is available at tfl.gov.uk/barking-riversideconsult.
Funding for an extension has been agreed in principle, and we now return to seek your views on
different route options and to discuss further some of the issues which were raised last autumn. The
consultation finishes on 21 June 2015.
How can I find out more?
Please contact the project if you feel a meeting to discuss the proposals would be useful. More
information is available on our website at tfl.gov.uk/barking-riverside-consult. You can also write to
‘FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS’ or email bre@tfl.gov.uk.
We are also holding two public information days at which TfL staff involved in the project will be
available to answer your questions:
Barking Library Learning Centre, 2 Town Square, Barking, IG11 7NB
Saturday 13th June, 1300-1700
The Rivergate Centre Barking Riverside, Minter Rd, Barking, IG11 0FJ
Monday 15th June, 1500-1900
Yours sincerely
Richard de Cani
Managing Director, Planning
48
Appendix G – List of stakeholders consulted
Action for Children
Action on Hearing Loss (RNID)
Age UK London
Association for Consultancy and Engineering (ACE)
AXA REIM
Barking & Dagenham Safer Transport Team
Barking and Dagenham Chamber of Commerce
Barking and Dagenham NHS Care Commissioning Group
Barking Riverside
Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust
Better Bankside
BGORUG
British Deaf Association (BDA)
British Gas
British Sky Broadcasting Ltd
British Youth Council
BT Group Plc
BT Openreach
c2c
Cable & Wireless
Campaign for Better Transport
Campaign for Clean Air in London
Canal & River Trust
Canary Wharf Group
Central London Connexions
Centre for Cities
Centre for London
Changemakers
City Year London
Civil Engineering Contractors Association (CECA)
Community Transport Association (CTA)
Confederation of British Industry (CBI)
Corona Energy
49
Council for Disabled Children
Crossrail Ltd
CTC – Cyclists’ Touring Club
Cubic Transportation Systems Ltd
DABD (UK)
DB Schenker
Department for Communities and Local Government
Department for Transport
Direct Rail Services
Disabled Persons Transport Committee
Disablement Association of Barking & Dagenham
Dong Energy UK
Dunbar Management Investments Ltd
E on UK
East London Business Alliance
EDF Energy
Edmonton CLP
EE
EEF (Engineering Employers' Federation)
End Violence Against Women
English Heritage
Environment Agency
Envision
Federation of Small Businesses (FSB)
Fitzrovia Partnership
Foyer Federation
Freight Transport Association (FTA)
Freightliner
Friends Life
Friends of the Earth
Gazprom Energy
GB Railfreight
GDF Suez Energy Ltd
Greater London Authority (GLA)
Greater London Forum for Older People (GLF)
HS2 Ltd
50
Inclusion London
Independent Disability Advisory Group (IDAG)
Inland Waterways Association
Institute of Advanced Motorists
Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE)
John G Russell (Transport) Ltd
Jon Cruddas MP
Leonard Cheshire Disability
LFEPA (London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority)
Living Streets
London Borough of Barking & Dagenham
London Borough of Camden
London Borough of Hackney
London Borough of Haringey
London Borough of Havering
London Borough of Newham
London Borough of Redbridge
London Borough of Waltham Forest
London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI)
London Civic Forum
London Councils
London First
London Riverside BID
London TravelWatch
London Visual Impairment Forum (LVIF)
London Voluntary Service Council
London Wildlife Trust
London Youth
LOROL
Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership
Margaret Hodge MP
Metropolitan Police
MiNet/ROTA
Multiple Sclerosis Society
Muscular Dystrophy Campaign
National Children's Bureau (NCB)
51
National Council for Voluntary Youth Services (NCVYS)
National Grid
Natural England
NCVO
Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd
Newham Safer Transport Team
North East Chamber of Commerce (NECC)
North London Strategic Alliance
Npower
Office of Rail Regulation
Partnership for Young London
Passenger Focus
People First
Plusnet
Princes Trust
RAC Foundation for Motoring
RADAR
Rail Delivery Group (RDG)
Rail Freight Group
Rethink
Road Haulage Association (RHA)
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)
Royal London Society for the Blind (RLSB)
SCOPE
Scottish & Southern Energy (SSE)
Scottish Power Energy Retail Ltd
Sustrans
Telefonica UK
Thames Water
The Association of Guide Dogs for the Blind
The London Legacy Development Corporation
TM Treasury
Total Gas & Power
UK Broadband
UK Citizens
Virgin Media
52
Appendix H – Copy of the consultation leaflet
N.B. On 16 June 2015, the decision was taken to extend the consultation to 28 June 2015
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Appendix I – Public events
Scratton Farm tenants and
residents association meeting
Julia Gardens
Barking
Tuesday, 19 May
1930-2000
About 20 attendees
Sutton Estate tenants and
residents association meeting
Barking Town Hall
Town Square
Barking
IG11 7LU
Wednesday, 20 May
1830
About 20 attendees
Thames ward tenants and
residents association meeting
Riverside House
30A Roxwell Road
Barking
IG11 0PR
Tuesday, 2 June
1930
About 20 attendees
Roadshow
Barking Library Learning Centre
2 Town Square
Barking
IG11 7NB
Saturday 13 June
1300 – 1700
About 20 attendees
Roadshow
The Rivergate Centre
Barking Riverside
Minter Road
Barking
IG11 0FJ
Monday, 15 June
1500 – 1900
23 attendees
Tenants Federation
(Combined chairs from TRA's)
meeting
Barking and Dagenham Civic
Centre
Rainham Road North
Dagenham
RM10 7BN
Wednesday, 17 June
1830
About 25 attendees
Choats Road residents meeting
c/o Scratton Farm
Julia Gardens
Barking
Tuesday, 23 June
1900 -2030
About 8 attendees
60
Appendix J – Message to Oyster users
Dear Test email recipient,
I am writing to ask for your views on our plans for the Barking Riverside extension of London Overground.
These plans have further developed since the consultation in September last year. We now have funding
agreed in principle and would like your views on the proposed route options.
For full details and to have your say, please visit tfl.gov.uk/barking-riverside-consult
This consultation will run until Sunday 21 June.
Yours sincerely,
Richard de Cani
Managing Director Planning
These are our consultation customer service updates. To unsubscribe, please click here
61
Appendix K – Press advert
The advert appeared in the Barking and Dagenham Post (13 and 27 May and 13 June 2015; and
the Barking and Dagenham Yellow Advertiser on 14, 18 and 28 May and 18 June 2015.
62
Appendix L – Press release
63
Appendix M - Response to questions
In spring 2015 Transport for London (TfL) conducted a public consultation on the proposal to extend the London Overground
Barking to Gospel Oak line to the Barking Riverside development site. The consultation ran from 11 May 2015 to 28 June 2015.
The consultation into the Barking Riverside Extension (BRE) generated 600 responses from the public and stakeholder groups.
A full breakdown of the consultation responses is provided in the consultation report which is published alongside this document.
This document sets out TfL’s response to the main questions raised during the consultation. This section reflects TfL’s position
based on information available as of August 2015. The proposed extension is still under development. It is possible
circumstances influencing these proposals may change through the course of developing the designs.
Question
Response
Will the London Overground be
extended further south across the
Thames River?
TfL propose to extend the Overground to Barking Riverside, where the railway would
terminate at a new station. In the longer-term it might be desirable to further extend the
Overground south of the Thames to connect with Thamesmead and Abbey Wood. TfL
propose to provide passive provision, whereby the track alignment to Barking Riverside
would not prohibit the possibility of a future extension. This does not include designing
a further extension, or undertaking any physical works towards the construction of a
river crossing as part of the currently proposed Barking Riverside Extension project.
With option B, could grade
separation be employed at the
junction with the Tilbury line to
allow for increased capacity in
future?
Option B is grade separated.
July 2015
The passive provision for an additional station is for London Overground services only.
Separate to the proposed Overground extension, an additional station at Beam Park
that will be served by c2c services is proposed to open in 2020
Page 64 of 70
Question
Response
Are there any improvements to
Barking station planned as part of
BRE?
Overground services will transfer from platform 1 and will share use of platforms 7 and
8 along with c2c services. This will enable services to operate on the Tilbury line
towards Barking Riverside. TfL is currently applying its transport demand models as
well as a detailed station model, to predict demand for interchange at the station and is
working closely with Network Rail and c2c to identify the impacts of the scheme.
While there are no improvements currently planned at Barking Station as part of the
Barking Riverside Extension project, c2c is developing a set of unrelated proposed
enhancements as part of their franchise agreement.
Would it not be better to provide
passive provision for a future
extension south of the River
Thames with the current station
design?
The principle of the extension is to unlock the development potential of the Barking
Riverside site. To inform the design of the railway, TfL undertook a detailed
assessment of the local constraints and a review of existing technical information. This
concluded that a route alignment diverging from the Tilbury line and utilising a viaduct
between Renwick Road and Barking Riverside represents the optimal solution in
providing a new rail connection to Barking Riverside, to unlock the creation of 10,800
homes.
Passive provision for a future extension to the south via Barking Riverside could only
be achieved through the provision of an underground station to serve the site.
However, this would significantly increase the cost of the project and would not deliver
any additional new homes.
TfL recognises that a possible future extension to the south is one of the longer term
proposals included in the Mayor’s 2050 Infrastructure Plan, to expand the rail network
to support housing growth and improve orbital rail capacity in Outer London. Therefore
TfL will continue to progress the BRE whilst ensuring the plans would not preclude the
connection of the BRE to a southern extension, should these proposals come forward
in the future.
Page 65 of 70
Question
Response
Passive provision for longer
platforms should be included in
the new station design, as it is
vital to the future development of
services.
The platforms at the new station would be designed to accommodate the new four car
electric trains due to be introduced on the route from 2017 / 2018 and include passive
provision for 5 car trains.
Viaducts need to be constructed to
make the environment friendly for
pedestrians, well lit with enough
room for pedestrians and cyclists,
preferably under one arch.
The ability to move under a viaduct to reduce severance is something TfL will consider
as part of the process for selecting a viaduct structure and its detailed design. TfL are
working with BRL to ensure crossing points for pedestrians and cyclists in the
Masterplan are fit for purpose. At this stage, we are looking at possible locations for
crossing points. At a later stage, we will ensure any designs meet the current highways
standards and is acceptable to the local council.
Why was option 6 from the Route
Option Assessment not developed
further and included in the 2015
consultation as a viable option?
Option 6 was based on the alignment previously proposed for the DLR extension to
Dagenham Dock, with a connection to the Tilbury line to enable services to operate
between Barking and Barking Riverside. This route would need to rise to cross the
freight terminal, an associated warehouse building and the westbound Tilbury lines on
a viaduct, before being lowered to pass under the National Grid Power lines, and then
rising again to cross Choats Road. A feasibility assessment of the alignment
demonstrated that such a vertical alignment in this location would not be achievable, as
the design would not comply with network rail engineering design and safety standards.
I can't see why the route heads so
far south relative to the housing
development. Reducing the length
of the line would reduce journey
times fractionally and open more
land for development.
The station is located in the proposed district centre for Barking Riverside, and is
adjacent to River Road, a key bus spine for the development. This allows 85% of new
units to fall within a 12min walk of the station and for the station to be accessible to
100% of Barking Riverside either by foot or public transport (bus). The alignment is
largely on sloping land at the edge of the development, and adjacent to retained open
space, so the impact on developable land is minimal.
Page 66 of 70
Question
Response
The new station does not really
serve existing residents. The first
station should be at Renwick
Road, with a second one on River
Road?
The proposed extension would serve new and existing residents in the area, by
improving local connectivity between the Barking Riverside development, including
existing residential areas, Barking town centre and central London.
A station at Renwick Road is not proposed to be delivered as part of the project, as it is
not required to enable the development of Barking Riverside. However, route option B
would provide passive provision for the future delivery of station in the vicinity of
Renwick Road. Construction of a second station would be subject to future passenger
demand, funding and separate consent.
Barking Riverside has planning permission for up to 10,800 new homes. However,
without consent for an Overground extension in place, no more than 1,500 homes can
be built and no more than 4,000 homes permitted until the railway is operational. It is
proposed that the Overground extension would serve a terminus station in the vicinity
of River Road, which is required to enable the development of Barking Riverside.
Why doesn't TfL extend the
London Underground instead?
TfL has undertaken a thorough appraisal of alternative transport options which might
be used to unlock the Barking Riverside development. These are included in our
Transport Options summary report provided as part of the consultation. An extension of
the London Underground was considered, but rejected for the following reasons:
Operational issues
Eastbound, there would be a conflict between the District line and the Tilbury line at
ground level. This cannot be easily solved by building a flyover and running the
eastbound service on that, as there are significant overhead structures to the west of
Barking station, and not enough room to the east to build one. Westbound, the path
from the Tilbury line to the District Line would have to be created to the west of the
station, as the current fly-under for the District line on the approach to Platform 6 at
Page 67 of 70
Question
Response
Barking prevents a direct connection.
Signalling – Command and Control
Extensive modifications would need to be made to both railways’ signalling systems,
which would be extremely complex and expensive to develop. The conflicting moves
between London Underground Ltd (LUL) and c2c services would also require trains to
run at reduced speed on safety grounds, dramatically reducing the number of trains
which could operate over the affected routes to the detriment of both LUL and c2c
services. Additionally LUL and c2c use different types of train protection system, to
guard against collisions.
Railway Electrification
LUL and Network Rail use different systems of electrification. It is the policy of the
Office of Rail Regulation not to accommodate the system used by LUL trains unless
absolutely necessary. The main problem is the creation of stray currents from and to
receptors outside of the railway boundary. There would also be an increased risk to
both workers and passengers when compared to a conventional Overhead Line
System. By law, if a safer alternative exists, then that has to be chosen.
Will TfL increase the capacity of
the London Overground services
between Gospel Oak and Barking
to address problems with
crowding?
In 2013 TfL secured funding with the Department for Transport to electrify the railway.
This work will allow the current two carriage diesel trains to be replaced with four
carriage electric trains from 2017 / 2018. The new trains will relieve congestion and
provide more capacity on the Overground services between Gospel Oak and Barking.
In addition to the proposed extension, TfL is investigating the feasibility of increasing
peak frequencies on the Gospel Oak – Barking line. However, as the railway between
Gospel Oak and Barking is part of the national rail network that links the port at Tilbury
with the Midland mainline, London Overground services must share this link with rail
freight operators. This limits TfL’s ability to increase service frequencies.
Page 68 of 70
Question
Response
Why doesn't TfL extend the
London Overground further east
(eg Dagenham Dock, Rainham)
The key purpose of the proposed extension is to enable the development of the
Barking Riverside area to its maximum potential. An extension of the London
Overground further east was therefore not considered.
An extension of the DLR eastwards to Dagenham Dock through Barking Riverside had
previously been considered, but with no funding support this option is not actively being
progressed.
Together Barking Riverside, Dagenham Dock and Rainham all form part of the wider
London Riverside Opportunity Area. The overall transport strategy for the London
Riverside Opportunity Area is included in the Draft London Riverside Opportunity Area
Planning Framework (OAPF) 2015. In addition to the BRE, this includes a new station
at Beam Park on the Tilbury line to be served by c2c services. The BRE is an essential
part of the transport strategy of the London Riverside Opportunity Area.
The OAPF was consulted on earlier this year, between 9 February 2015 and 7 April
2015. Comments received on the draft OAPF are currently being considered with a
report setting out the results of consultation due to be published in Autumn 2015
alongside the finalised OAPF.
What zone will the Barking
No firm decision has been taken as to which fare zone Barking Riverside will be
Riverside station be in? How much located within. At this stage of planning the proposed station at Barking Riverside is
will the fares be?
assumed to be located in fare zone 4, based on geography and existing fare zone
boundaries. TfL will continue to develop the proposed BRE and further details will be
made available in due course.
When will TfL purchase the
electric trains for the Gospel Oak –
Barking route?
TfL announced on 19 June 2015 that the contract for a new fleet of 45 trains had been
awarded to Bombardier Transportation. The existing Gospel Oak – Barking route will
be operated by 8 of these new trains from 2017 / 2018.
Page 69 of 70
Question
Response
Is there an impact on c2c services
if the Overground shares the same
tracks?
Under the 2015 timetable, a clock face service with regular intervals cannot be
accommodated during a two hour period of the morning peak. We are currently working
with Network Rail and c2c to develop a timetable that works for all parties.
Would four car electric trains per
hour be insufficient to meet
demand once the housing
development is fully occupied?
TfL is currently applying its strategic transport models to forecast demand for the new
Barking Riverside services as well as the impact on the rest of the network and local
stations. It should be noted however that the proposed extension forms only one part of
a wider transport strategy, including increased East London Transit services, that
introduces significant new public transport capacity into the development area. This
strategy is set out as part of the Draft London Riverside Opportunity Area Planning
Framework (OAPF) 2015.
Why not have trains on the Gospel
Oak – Barking line that are the
same type as the existing London
Overground fleet and run them
beyond Gospel Oak? The Clapham
Junction route desperately suffers
from overcrowding and will only
get worse as and when the Old
Oak Common development gets
built.
The Gospel Oak – Barking route is being electrified by Network Rail and is due to be
completed in 2017. TfL has ordered a fleet of new four carriage electric trains which will
operate on the route from 2017 / 2018, replacing the existing two carriage diesel trains
and providing improved journey times and more capacity.
TfL is investigating the feasibility of increasing peak frequencies on parts of the London
Overground network, including the West London Line between Clapham Junction and
Willesden Junction. However, Overground services must share this link with rail freight
operators. This limits TfL’s ability to increase service frequencies. By the end of 2015,
all Overground trains on the West London Line will have been lengthened from 4
carriage to 5, increasing capacity by 20%.
TfL currently has no plans to extend the Gospel Oak – Barking route at the west end.
Page 70 of 70