Summary of responses - TfL Consultations · 2010-11-15 · A street-by-street analysis of responses...

Consultation on proposed new route 324 Summary of responses February 2010

2

Consultation on proposed new route 324

Summary of responses Contents

1. Introduction p.3

2. The consultation p.4

3. Responses from members of the public p.6

4. Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders p.14

5. Petitions and joint letters p.17 Appendix A – Copy of consultation leaflet p.18 Appendix B – List of roads consulted p.24 Appendix C – list of stakeholders consulted p.29 Appendix D – Reasons given by public for supporting scheme p.31 Appendix E – Reasons given by public for opposing scheme p.32 Appendix F – Variations to route suggested by members of public p.33

3

1. Introduction London Buses recently consulted stakeholders and the public on proposals to introduce new route 324. This report explains the background to the scheme and consultation and summarises the responses. We proposed that route 324 would operate between Stanmore station and Brent Cross, Tilling Road. It would use new single deck vehicles and would run every 20 minutes during the daytime and every 30 minutes during the evening on all days. The route would be operated by Transdev London Sovereign, which was awarded the contract on 22 February 2009. The scheme was developed in order to satisfy a number of long-standing requests for bus services. The route would provide Colindeep Lane in Colindale and the residential area to the west of Marsh Lane and Honeypot Lane in Stanmore with a bus service for the first time. The route would bring 760 households in the Colindeep Lane area and 480 households in the Stanmore area within 400m of a bus service for the first time. On-going liaison and engagement with affected councils and other key organisations informed the development of the route 324 proposals to public consultation stage. This included borough liaison meetings, site visits, route tests and evaluation of public requests. This allowed us to design the bus service proposals and develop them to public and wider stakeholder consultation. TfL will consider the consultation results alongside other operational, cost and transport planning factors when deciding whether to go ahead with the service as proposed. We expect to make a decision about whether to go ahead in January 2010 when we will announce the outcome and write to everyone who responded to the consultation and supplied contact details.

4

2. The consultation The public and stakeholder consultation ran between 4 May and 12 June 2009. It was designed to enable TfL to understand local opinion about the proposed new route. The potential outcomes of the consultation are:

• We decide the consultation raises no issues that should prevent us from proceeding with the scheme as originally proposed

• We modify the scheme in response to issues raised in consultation • We abandon the scheme as a result of issues raised in the consultation.

We would consult again with affected parties if we made significant changes to the proposed route. 2.1. Consultation objectives 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 service. • To understand any issues that might affect the route of which we were not previously

aware • To understand concerns and objections. • To allow respondents to make suggestions.

2.2. Who we consulted We carefully considered who might be affected by the new route before deciding who to consult. The consultation was intended to seek the views of people who lived near to the route and of other potential users. In order to achieve this, we decided to target households and businesses on all of the roads along which route 324 would operate, as well as those within approximately 300 metres of the proposed route. 2.3. Consultation material, distribution and publicity We produced a leaflet explaining our proposals and distributed this to around 17,000 households and businesses that had not opted out of receiving marketing on the electoral register. A copy of this leaflet is shown as Appendix A. A list of the roads it was sent to is shown as Appendix B. The leaflet was also sent by post and electronically to stakeholders including the councils, London TravelWatch, Members of Parliament, Assembly Members and local interest groups. A list of the stakeholders who we consulted is shown in Appendix C. The leaflet invited people to respond by using an attached pre-paid reply slip, by emailing [email protected], by using the TfL website, by post or by calling Customer Services on 0845 300 7000.

5

The same information was also available on the TfL website. People could respond on the reply slip included in the leaflet, via the form on the website, or by letter, telephone, textphone or email. Braille, audio and large font versions of the consultation material were available, as was a translation service to other languages. The consultation was also advertised in the local press and in the Brent Council magazine. 2.4. Meetings and site visits TfL staff discussed the proposals at various meetings, including:

• Public Transport Liaison Meetings at Harrow and Brent councils prior to the consultation in order to discuss the proposals with councillors, officers and other local stakeholders.

• An informal meeting with officers from Barnet council before the consultation. • Harrow Public Transport Users Association Public Bus Meeting • 324 meeting with officers and councillors from the London Borough of Harrow

We held a route test on 22 April where a 10.2 metre bus was driven along all of the proposed route. This was attended by various TfL staff, Harrow and Barnet councils, the Metropolitan Police and Transdev. The route test identified potential issues with proposed termini but concluded that the bus could safely use the proposed roads.

6

3. Responses from members of the public There were 2400 responses from individuals and 16 responses from stakeholders. Individual responses are summarised below; stakeholder responses are summarised in section 4. We asked four questions relating to the proposal and also invited respondents to add further comments. The results are summarised below. Table 1: Public consultation results

Do you support proposals? Yes 1905 79% No 402 17% No Answer 29 1% Not sure 64 3% Subtotal 2400

In favour of bus serving Colindeep Lane? Yes 1334 56% No 166 7% Doesn't affect me 853 36%

Not sure 47 2% Subtotal 2400

In favour of bus serving Old Church Lane, Abercorn Road, St. Andrews Drive & Culver

Grove? Yes 1360 57% No 399 17% Doesn't affect me 587 24% Not sure 54 2% Subtotal 2400

Proposal will improve my bus journey? Yes 1640 68% No 302 13% Doesn't affect me 375 16% Not sure 83 3% Subtotal 2400 100.0%

(Percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number)

7

3.1. Analysis by postcode The consultation drew the most responses from HA7 (Stanmore) and NW9 (Colindale) postcodes. This covers both sections of unserved road and indeed many of the other roads that the route would serve. Table 2: Analysis by postcode

HA7 (Stanmore) Do you support proposals?

Yes 754 66%No 344 30%Doesn't affect me/No answer 13 1%Not sure 27 2%Sub Total 1138

In favour of bus serving Colindeep Lane?

Yes 409 36%No 121 11%Doesn't affect me/No answer 578 51%Not sure 30 3%Sub total 1138

In favour of bus serving Old Church Lane, Abercorn Road, St. Andrews

Drive & Culver Grove Yes 682 60%No 362 32%Doesn't affect me/No answer 72 6%Not sure 22 2%Sub total 1138 Proposal will improve my bus journey? Yes 647 57%No 254 22%Doesn't affect me/No answer 193 17%Not sure 44 4%Sub total 1138

HA3 (Kenton, Queensbury) Do you support proposals?






8

NW9 (Kingsbury, Colindale) Do you support proposals?






NW4 (Hendon)

Do you support proposals? Yes 121 86%No 6 4%Doesn't affect me/No answer 4 3%Not sure 10 7%Sub Total 141




Drive & Culver Grove Yes 63 45%No 4 3%Doesn't affect me/No answer 68 48%Not sure 6 4%Sub total 141 Proposal will improve my bus journey?


(Percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number)

9

3.2. Analysis by street A street-by-street analysis of responses from properties on or near the proposed newly-served roads in Stanmore is shown below in Tables 3 and 4. Table 3:

Do you support the proposals described in the leaflet? (details shown for roads with 25 responses or more)

Stanmore HA7 - Roads in the newly served area directly served by route 324 Road Yes No Doesn't

affect me Not sure Total

Abercorn Road 1 24 1 1 27 Culver Grove 13 46 1 2 62 Old Church Lane 11 35 1 1 48 St Andrews Drive 11 118 0 2 131 Total 36 223 3 6 268 Table 4:


Stanmore - HA7 - Other roads in the newly served area Road Yes No Doesn't


Braithwaite Gardens 23 6 0 0 29 Bromefield 19 11 1 1 32 Coledale Drive 18 8 0 1 27 Crowshott Avenue 16 9 0 2 27 Gordon Avenue 28 8 1 1 38 Langland Crescent 24 1 0 0 25 Lansdowne Road 17 5 1 2 25 Portland Crescent 37 0 0 0 37 September Way 26 2 0 0 28 Wemborough Road 22 7 0 1 30 Other roads 218 47 2 8 275 Total 448 104 5 16 573 Responses from the rest of Stanmore are shown in table 5. Table 5:


Stanmore HA7 - Other Roads Road Yes No Doesn't


Honeypot Lane 57 2 1 0 60 Marsh Lane 23 5 1 0 29 Other roads 190 10 3 5 208 Total 270 17 5 5 297

10

The other newly served road would be Colindeep Lane. Responses for the Colindale area are shown in Tables 6 and 7. Table 6:

Do you support the proposals described in the leaflet? Colindale – NW4 / NW9 - Road served by route 324

Road Yes No Doesn't affect me

Not sure Total

Colindeep Lane 77 14 1 1 93 Table 7:

Do you support the proposals described in the leaflet? (details shown for roads with 25 responses or more) Roads in Colindale – NW4 / NW9 - Other roads


Not sure Total

Colin Crescent 45 0 0 0 45 Lynton Avenue 29 2 2 0 33 Other roads 91 4 1 1 97 Total 165 6 3 1 175 Analysis of responses from other areas along the proposed new route is shown in tables 8, 9 and 10: Table 8:


Kenton and Queensbury HA3Road Yes No Doesn't


Kenton Road 48 0 0 3 51 Streatfield Road 32 5 1 2 40 Other roads 158 4 2 7 171 Total 238 9 3 12 262 Table 9:


Kingsbury NW9 Road Yes No Doesn't


Kingsbury Road 34 0 0 0 34 Berkeley Road 25 1 0 0 26 Princes Avenue 24 0 0 2 26 Other roads 376 10 3 8 397 Total 459 11 3 10 483 Table 10:

Roads in Hendon NW4 Do you support the proposals described in the leaflet?


Not sure Total

All roads 120 4 3 10 137

11

There were 112 other responses from elsewhere or with no road stated. Of these, 92 supported the proposals (“Yes”), 14 were against (“No”) and 3 each were not sure or were not affected. In summary:

• There was a high response rate from all of the unserved roads that route 324 would use. • The unserved roads in Stanmore had more responses opposed to the scheme than in

favour. All other roads had more responses expressing support for the scheme than objecting to it. Roads to a distance of about 300m from the bus routes were covered.

• Responses from the other unserved road, Colindeep Lane, show a strong level of support.

3.3. Reasons for supporting the scheme: The most common reason given for supporting the proposed route was the new journey opportunities that it would provide. Some people commented that it would allow them to easily access the transport network for the first time, while others said it would make their journeys easier. People particularly welcomed the following aspects of the route:

• Would bring a bus service close to households on and near Colindeep Lane • Would bring a bus service close to households west of Old Church Lane, Abercorn

Road, St Andrews Drive and Culver Grove • Would provide a direct link between Kingsbury and Brent Cross • Would help elderly and disabled people to access services such as shops and

doctors in Stanmore, Hendon • Would make school and college journeys easier • Would enable drivers (especially parents) to leave cars at home, reducing

congestion and improving the environment. Many of those who responded in favour did not give specific reasons for their support, but instead supplied comments such as “Not before time!” and “Great idea!”. Some people who supported the scheme also suggested that buses should run more frequently than every 20 minutes. A full list of reasons given for supporting the scheme is shown as appendix D.

12

3.4. Reasons given for opposing the scheme: The consultation drew 344 objections from respondents with HA7 (Stanmore) postcodes - 86% of the total number of objections. Therefore, many of the reasons given involve concerns relating to buses using Old Church Lane, Abercorn Road, Culver Grove and St Andrews Drive. Congestion: The most common reason for opposing the scheme concerned existing congestion around Old Church Lane and Abercorn Road – especially at school and church times. People felt that buses would worsen this congestion and would themselves be prone to delay. A very small minority of respondents felt that Colindeep Lane was too narrow and congested for a bus route. Road width: Some residents also felt that Old Church Lane and Abercorn Road are too narrow for buses, with some also suggesting that St Andrews Drive and Culver Grove are not wide enough either. Some respondents drew attention to traffic islands in Culver Grove and Abercorn Road, suggesting that they would be too narrow for buses to pass through and would need modifying. Danger to pedestrians: Some respondents in the Stanmore area felt that the proposed route would endanger schoolchildren and pedestrians crossing the roads as buses would decrease visibility and be liable to be overtaken by cars. A small number of people suggested that improved crossing facilities were needed on the unserved roads in Stanmore. Danger to traffic: Some Stanmore respondents felt that buses would create more traffic accidents and make it difficult for residents to access and exit their driveways. Route not needed: Some people commented that the new route was not needed in the Belmont area of Stanmore as it is already well-served by existing bus routes on Uxbridge Road, Marsh Lane, Honeypot Lane, Wemborough Road and Streatfield Road. Other reasons given for opposing the proposed new route include:

• Would create noise and air pollution • Would inhibit emergency services that often use the proposed route in Stanmore • Vibrations from buses would damage buildings – especially listed buildings in the

conservation area towards the top of Old Church Lane. A full list of reasons given for opposing the proposal is shown as Appendix E.

13

3.5. Suggested variations to route Some respondents suggested changes or additions to the proposed route. The most common suggestions were:

• Should use Marsh Lane and Honeypot Lane: • Should serve Queensbury Station • Should go via Wemborough Rd and Belmont Circle • Should be extended to Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital

A full list of suggested variations to the route is included as Appendix F.

14

4. Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders Some stakeholder responses were received as leaflets and marked as being from businesses. However, where we feel that the response represents a number of individuals or is from somewhere that generates significant numbers of visitors, we have classed these as stakeholders. 4.1. London Boroughs London Borough of Harrow: The council submitted a formal written response to the consultation. It said that it supported the principle of the proposed route, but could not accept it using the unserved roads in Stanmore with standard-sized buses. The key points of their response are:

• A vehicle smaller than the proposed 10.2m single deck bus must be used if the proposed routeing is used.

• If there is no change to the vehicle type then the council would support a routeing via Marsh Lane and Honeypot Lane.

• Request that the service is extended to the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital (RNOH).

• The council would require funding to improve pedestrian crossing facilities on Abercorn Road and St Andrews Drive. It is also concerned about the lack of suitable crossing facilities on Old Church Lane and has attempted to solve this issue in the past without success.

• Would prefer the route to terminate at Harrow or Northwick Park Hospital rather than Brent Cross.

• Queensbury station should be served if the route does go to Brent Cross. TfL officers also met officers and councillors from the borough and Harrow Public Transport Users Association on 16 June 2009 to discuss the proposals and consultation response. The key points discussed at this meeting are summarised below:

• The council would like smaller vehicles to be used on the route in order to allay residents’ concerns (they suggested buses similar to those previously marketed as ‘Hoppa Buses’ or the 7.8m vehicles used on routes H1, H2 and H3)

• The council would like to know if TfL has any evidence that providing bus services near schools reduces local car use.

• The council would like the route to serve the RNOH and also a nearby mosque and temple on Wood Lane. £350k Section 106 funding could be available to support this extension.

• The council suggests that implementation of the route is later than September 2009 in order to allow consultation issues to be properly investigated.

• The council would require funding to improve crossing facilities. We also received consultation responses from three Belmont Ward councillors:

• Councillor David Ashton said that he concurred with the concerns of the Belmont Safer Neighbourhood Ward Panel (see below). He also echoed the Council’s formal response by adding that a smaller "hoppa bus" might be a suitable vehicle for the

15

residential roads in question, supporting a link to RNOH and suggesting rerouteing the service along Marsh Lane and Honeypot Lane if full-sized bus were used.

• Councillor Manji Kara said that, whilst supporting the improved links from Stanmore, he and his residents felt that the unserved roads in Stanmore were not suitable for buses on account of their width and congestion. He also expressed concerns about noise caused by buses negotiating the gradient on St Andrews Drive.

• Councillor Barry Macleod-Cullinane said that he shared his residents’ opposition to the route. He said that he opposed the route because the unserved roads are narrow and congested and that buses would endanger pedestrians and create noise and pollution. He added that the route was not needed and that, if it went ahead, it should use Marsh Lane and Honeypot Lane and should serve the RNOH.

London Borough of Barnet: No official response was received from the London Borough of Barnet. However, the borough has expressed support for enhanced services in the Colindeep Lane area in previous correspondence. London Borough of Brent: No official council response was received. However, in email exchanges with TfL staff, officers welcomed the direct link to Brent Cross from Queensbury and Kingsbury for the first time, better links to Tube stations and Stanmore College. Councillor Kanta Mistry (Queensbury ward, LB Brent) objected to the route using unserved roads in Stanmore, saying that they were narrow and congested. 4.2. Members of Parliament and Assembly Members

• Andrew Dismore MP (Hendon) forwarded three emails containing correspondence from constituents both opposing and supporting the proposals. These views were included with the overall public consultation.

• Caroline Pidgeon AM (Londonwide) forwarded an email from a resident who supported the proposed route. This was included with the overall public consultation.

4.3. London TravelWatch London TravelWatch said that it welcomed the proposals as the route would serve roads not previously served and provide a welcome link to Kingsbury Community Hospital, as well as interchange opportunities with local underground stations. 4.4. Metropolitan Police The North West Traffic Management Unit wrote to say that, having attended the route test, it felt the bus could travel along the proposed roads. It added that TfL, police and council officers would need to undertake site visits to identify stop locations and safe standing arrangements need to be confirmed at both ends of the route.

16

4.5. JFS School • The School Travel Co-ordinator wrote to say that the school welcomes the route. He

enclosed postcode data suggesting that the route would be heavily used (especially from Stanmore and Bushey) and added that buses might become crowded at school times.

• We also received a letter from two representatives of the school’s Student Council. They said that the route would appeal to approximately 200 of their fellow students and would make the school more accessible and affordable for students living in Stanmore, Canons Park, Wealdstone and Bushey.

4.6. Stanmore College The college returned a consultation leaflet saying that it strongly welcomes the proposed route, adding that it could benefit over 100 students and staff. 4.7. Harrow Public Transport Users Association (HPTUA) HPTUA said that it supported the new service and the section of route along unserved roads in Stanmore. However, it said that smaller 'hoppa' buses should be used and that parking restrictions around schools would be needed. It added that the route should serve Queensbury station and the RNOH. 4.8. Canons Park Residents Association (CAPRA) CAPRA replied to the consultation through the TfL website saying that it supported the proposed route. However, it said that parked cars might make it difficult for buses to pass pedestrian islands in Culver Grove and that this would need to be addressed. 4.9. Abercorn Road and Old Church Lane Resident’s Association This residents association said that it opposed the proposed route as the unserved roads are too narrow and congested. It added that buses would: render the roads inaccessible to emergency services and residents; endanger pedestrians and motorists; make driveway access hazardous by reducing visibility; not be able to negotiate heavy traffic. It felt that the route should use Marsh Lane and Honeypot Lane instead. 4.10. Belmont Safer Neighbourhoods Ward Panel The Belmont Safer Neighbourhoods Ward Panel said that the unserved roads in Stanmore were unsuitable. It said that buses would not be able to pass a zebra crossing in Abercorn Road, would increase congestion and would endanger pedestrians. It added that buses would damage listed buildings on Old Church Lane. 4.11. St John the Evangelist Church, Old Church Lane The church said that it welcomed the proposed service as it would help elderly people to get to church and would reduce car use. It suggested that bus stops be placed near to the church. 4.12. Saturday school on Abercorn Road (name not supplied) The school said that it supported the proposals but raised concerns about possible bus stops on Abercorn Rd, saying that stops near the school would cause congestion and endanger pupils. However, it said that it would encourage older students to use the bus and noted the positive environmental impact.

17

5. Petitions and Joint Letters One petition with 90 signatures was submitted by Cllr Kara – one of three councillors for the Belmont ward in Stanmore. The petition was titled “Petition opposing bus 324 running in Old Church Lane, Abercorn Road, St Andrew's Drive and Culver Grove”. It read: “we, the undersigned, oppose this route due to the inherent unsuitability of the roads, safety and congestion concerns.”

18

Appendix A – Copy of consultation leaflet

24

Appendix B – List of roads consulted Road Community Postcode Borough Tilling Road Brent Cross NW4 Barnet Templehof Avenue Brent Cross NW4 Barnet Prince Charles Drive Brent Cross NW4 Barnet Spalding Road Brent Cross NW4 Barnet Haley Road Brent Cross NW4 Barnet Renters Avenue Brent Cross NW4 Barnet Hendon Way Brent Cross NW4 Barnet Watford Way Brent Cross NW4 Barnet Park Road Brent Cross NW4 Barnet Denehurst Gardens Brent Cross NW4 Barnet Beaufort Gardens Hendon NW4 Barnet Elliot Road Hendon NW4 Barnet Allington Road Hendon NW4 Barnet Graham Road Hendon NW4 Barnet Cheyne Walk Hendon NW4 Barnet Cheyne Close Hendon NW4 Barnet Queens Road Hendon NW4 Barnet Vivian Avenue Hendon NW4 Barnet Alderton Crescent Hendon NW4 Barnet Rundell Crescent Hendon NW4 Barnet Neeld Crescent Hendon NW4 Barnet Prothero Gardens Hendon NW4 Barnet Station Road Hendon NW4 Barnet The Burroughs Hendon NW4 Barnet Wykeham Road Hendon NW4 Barnet Burroughs Gardens Hendon NW4 Barnet Richmond Gardens Hendon NW4 Barnet Wenlock Gardens Hendon NW4 Barnet Rickard Close Hendon NW4 Barnet Endersleigh Gardens Hendon NW4 Barnet Colindeep Gardens Hendon NW4 Barnet Barton Close Hendon NW4 Barnet Colindeep Lane Colindale NW9 Barnet Colin Crescent Colindale NW9 Barnet Rushgrove Avenue Colindale NW9 Barnet Lynton Avenue Colindale NW9 Barnet Selbourne Gardens Colindale NW9 Barnet Denmark Hill Drive Colindale NW9 Barnet Peel Drive Colindale NW9 Barnet

25

Cottenham Drive Colindale NW9 Barnet Clovelly Avenue Colindale NW9 Barnet The Loning Colindale NW9 Barnet Chalfont Court Colindale NW9 Barnet Rankin Close Colindale NW9 Barnet Marlow Court Colindale NW9 Barnet Sheavesill Gardens Colindale NW9 Barnet Court Way Colindale NW9 Barnet Beaulieu Close Colindale NW9 Barnet Manor Way Colindale NW9 Barnet Colin Park Road Colindale NW9 Barnet Orchard Gate Colindale NW9 Barnet Edgware Road Colindale NW9 Barnet Hay Lane Roe Green NW9 Barnet Windover Avenue Roe Green NW9 Barnet Sheaveshill Court Roe Green NW9 Barnet Evelyn Avenue Roe Green NW9 Brent Grove Crescent Roe Green NW9 Brent Rose Glen Roe Green NW9 Brent St. George's Avenue Roe Green NW9 Brent Hayland Close Roe Green NW9 Brent Pear Close Roe Green NW9 Brent Buck Lane Roe Green NW9 Brent Hillside Roe Green NW9 Brent Haydon Close Roe Green NW9 Brent Elm Close Roe Green NW9 Brent Stag Lane Roe Green NW9 Brent Boakes Close Roe Green NW9 Brent Roe Green Roe Green NW9 Brent Fairfields Crescent Kingsbury NW9 Brent Fairfields Close Kingsbury NW9 Brent Bacon Lane Kingsbury NW9 Brent Stubbs Close Kingsbury NW9 Brent Highfield Avenue Kingsbury NW9 Brent Highfield Close Kingsbury NW9 Brent Uphill Drive Kingsbury NW9 Brent Slough Lane Kingsbury NW9 Brent Kingsbury Road Kingsbury NW9 Brent Old Kenton Lane Kingsbury NW9 Brent Larkspur Close Kingsbury NW9 Brent Sedum Close Kingsbury NW9 Brent Sunningdale Gardens Kingsbury NW9 Harrow

26

Valley Drive Kingsbury NW9 Harrow Manor Close Kingsbury NW9 Harrow Sutherland Court Kingsbury NW9 Harrow Brampton Road Kingsbury NW9 Harrow Berkeley Road Kingsbury NW9 Harrow Crundale Avenue Kingsbury NW9 Harrow Grosvenor Crescent Kingsbury NW9 Harrow Mersham Drive Kingsbury NW9 Harrow Kinsgbury Circle Kingsbury NW9 Harrow Fryent Way Kingsbury NW9 Harrow Kenton Road Kingsbury NW9 Harrow Honeypot Lane Kingsbury NW9 Harrow Leybourne Road Queensbury NW9 Harrow Elmcroft Gardens Queensbury NW9 Harrow Orchard Grove Queensbury NW9 Harrow Repton Road Queensbury NW9 Harrow Cowbridge Road Queensbury NW9 Harrow Honeypot Close Queensbury NW9 Harrow Ruskin Gardens Queensbury NW9 Harrow Princes Avenue Queensbury NW9 Harrow Rose Bates Drive Queensbury NW9 Harrow Kingsbury Community Hospital Queensbury NW9 Harrow St. Paul's Avenue Queensbury NW9 Harrow Westmoreland Road Queensbury HA8 Harrow Mary Close Queensbury HA8 Harrow Ruth Close Queensbury HA8 Harrow Cumberland Road Queensbury HA8 Harrow Lowther Road Queensbury HA8 Harrow Alexander Court Queensbury HA7 Harrow Winchester Road Queensbury HA3 Harrow Malvern Gardens Queensbury HA3 Harrow Glebe Avenue Queensbury HA3 Harrow Glebe Crescent Queensbury HA3 Harrow Everton Drive Queensbury HA7 Harrow Chichester Court Queensbury HA7 Harrow Charlton Road Queensbury HA3 Harrow Taunton Way Queensbury Ha3 Harrow Holly Avenue Queensbury HA3 Harrow Streatfield road Queensbury HA3 Harrow Moorhouse Road Queensbury HA3 Harrow Kenmore Road Queensbury HA3 Harrow Bracker Road Queensbury HA3 Harrow

27

Portland Crescent Queensbury HA7 Harrow Langland Crescent Queensbury HA7 Harrow Clydesdale Avenue Queensbury HA7 Harrow Charmain Avenue Queensbury HA7 Harrow Culver Grove Belmont HA7 Harrow Morley Crescent East Belmont HA7 Harrow Morley Crescent West Belmont HA7 Harrow Hiliary Gardens Belmont HA7 Harrow Derwent Crescent Belmont HA7 Harrow St. Andew's Close Belmont HA7 Harrow Crowshott Avenue Belmont HA7 Harrow St. Andew's Drive Belmont HA7 Harrow Braithwaite Gardens Belmont HA7 Harrow Kynance Gardens Belmont HA7 Harrow Coledale Drive Belmont HA7 Harrow Gyles Park Belmont HA7 Harrow Bromefield Belmont HA7 Harrow Wemborough Road Belmont HA7 Harrow Abercorn Road Stanmore HA7 Harrow Belmont Lane Stanmore HA7 Harrow Golf Close Stanmore HA7 Harrow Acorn Close Stanmore HA7 Harrow Oak Tree Close Stanmore HA7 Harrow Tracy Court Stanmore HA7 Harrow Aberdeen Cottages Stanmore HA7 Harrow Courthens Mews Stanmore HA7 Harrow Alguin Court Stanmore HA7 Harrow Old Church Lane Stanmore HA7 Harrow Lansdowne Road Stanmore HA7 Harrow Barn Crescent Stanmore HA7 Harrow The Ridgeway Stanmore HA7 Harrow Wolverton Road Stanmore HA7 Harrow Lindeth Close Stanmore HA7 Harrow September Way Stanmore HA7 Harrow Gordon Avenue Stanmore HA7 Harrow Elm Park Stanmore HA7 Harrow Cherry Tree Way Stanmore HA7 Harrow Tudor Well Close Stanmore HA7 Harrow Rectory Lane Stanmore HA7 Harrow Rectory Close Stanmore HA7 Harrow Church Road Stanmore HA7 Harrow Pynnacles Close Stanmore HA7 Harrow

28

Glebe Court Road Stanmore HA7 Harrow Claire Gardens Stanmore HA7 Harrow Buckingham Parage Stanmore HA7 Harrow Coverdale Close Stanmore HA7 Harrow Dennis Gardens Stanmore HA7 Harrow Ray Gardens Stanmore HA7 Harrow Valencia Road Stanmore HA7 Harrow Aran Drive Stanmore HA7 Harrow The Broadway Stanmore HA7 Harrow London road Stanmore HA7 Harrow Dennis Lane Stanmore HA7 Harrow Oak Lodge Close Stanmore HA7 Harrow Rusper Close Stanmore HA7 Harrow White House Drive Stanmore HA7 Harrow Kerry Court Stanmore HA7 Harrow Kerry Avenue Stanmore HA7 Harrow Merrion Avenue Stanmore HA7 Harrow Copley Road Stanmore HA7 Harrow Marsh Lane Stanmore HA7 Harrow Hardwick Close Stanmore HA7 Harrow

29

Appendix C – list of stakeholders consulted Elected Members Greater London Authority Andrew Boff AM Londonwide Member

Greater London Authority Brian Coleman AM Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden

Greater London Authority Caroline Pidgeon AM Londonwide Member

Greater London Authority Darren Johnson AM Londonwide Member

Greater London Authority Dee Doocey AM Londonwide Member

Greater London Authority Gareth Bacon AM Londonwide Member

Greater London Authority Jenny Jones AM Londonwide Member

Greater London Authority Mike Tuffrey AM Londonwide Member

Greater London Authority Murad Qureshi AM Londonwide Member

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

Greater London Authority Nicky Gavron AM Londonwide Member

Greater London Authority Richard Barnbrook AM Londonwide Member

Greater London Authority Victoria Borwick AM Londonwide Member

Greater London Authority Valerie Shawcross AM Chair London Assembly Transport Committee

House of Commons Andrew Dismore MP Hendon

House of Commons Barry Gardiner MP Brent North

House of Commons Dawn Butler MP Brent South

House of Commons Gareth Thomas MP Harrow West

House of Commons Rudi Vis MP Finchley and Golders Green

House of Commons Sarah Teather MP Brent East

House of Commons Theresa Villiers MP Chipping Barnet

House of Commons Tony McNulty MP Harrow East

Local Authorities London Borough of Barnet

London Borough of Brent

London Borough of Harrow

London Councils

Police and Health Authorities Metropolitan Police Service

Barnet Primary Care Trust Brent Primary Care Trust

Colindale Hospital

Harrow Primary Care Trust

Kingsbury Community Hospital

NHS Brent Provider Services

NHS London

Northwick Park Hospital

30

London-wide stakeholders Britain Visitor Centre

Docklands Light Railway Ltd

English Tourism Council

Heathrow Airport Tourist Information Centre

London City Airport

London Cycling Campaign

London First

London TravelWatch

London Omnibus Traction Society

London Underground

North London Strategic Alliance

Royal Mail

Visit London

Waterloo Tourist Information Centre

Known local interest groups Belmont Safer Neighbourhood Panel Canons Park Residents Association

East Finchley Bus Watch

Harrow Public Transport Users' Assoc. (HPTUA)

Park Royal Partnership Ltd

Stanmore Society

The Clubhouse

31

Appendix D – Reasons given by public for supporting scheme

Comments in support of route 324: Number of times raised

% of total respondants

Welcome new links and access to bus and tube networks 391 16.3% Will help schoolchildren and college students 90 3.8% Will help elderly 88 3.7% Will encourage people to leave cars at home and increases options for non-drivers 34 1.4% Will address inconsiderate parking in Stanmore 4 0.2% Will help those with impaired mobility 5 0.2% Will improve environment 2 0.1% Will calm traffic and discourage rat-running 2 0.08% Stanmore congestion shouldn't stop scheme from proceeding 1 0.04% Proposed when Belmont estate built 1 0.04% Will be helpful if Jubilee line down 1 0.04% Route will make Old Church Ln and Gordon Ave more desirable and will push up house prices 1 0.04% Would relieve pressure on other routes 1 0.04%

32

Appendix E – Reasons given by public for opposing scheme

Comments in opposition to route 324: Number of times raised

% of total respondents

Stanmore unserved roads are already congested 242 10.1% Old Church Ln too narrow 197 8.2% Danger to schools and pedestrians 149 6.2% Abercorn Rd too narrow 151 6.3% Not needed 122 5.1% Culver Grove too narrow 112 4.7% St Andrews Drive too narrow 105 4.4% Noise and Pollution 91 3.8% Danger to traffic and cars exiting drives 70 2.9% Will cause problems for emergency services 56 2.3% Damage to buildings 37 1.5% Will breach privacy of a residential area 14 0.58% Colindeep Ln too congested 12 0.50% Waste of money serving Stanmore unserved roads when infrastructure nearby 8 0.33% Concerned about congestion and delays on Kingsbury High Road 5 0.21% Police oppose using Old Church Ln and Abercorn Rd 5 0.21% Parking restrictions unfair to Stanmore residents 4 0.17% Spend money on a lift at Stanmore Station instead 4 0.17% Concerned that bus and stops will encourage bad behaviour 4 0.17% Buses were diverted along St Andrews Road in summer 08 and caused havoc. 2 0.08% Will discourage children from walking to school 2 0.08% Will reduce house prices 2 0.08% Will affect local traders 2 0.08%

33

Appendix F – Variations to route suggested by members of public

Suggested changes to 324 routeing: Number of times raised

% of total respondants

Should use Marsh Lane and Honeypot Lane 133 5.5% Should serve Queensbury Station 31 1.3% Should go via Wemborough Rd and Belmont Circle 16 0.7% Should be extended to Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital 9 0.4% Should terminate closer to Tesco 7 0.29% Serve Kenton Road 6 0.25% Run via the Hyde, not Colindeep Ln 5 0.21% Serve Golders Green & Cricklewood 4 0.17% Marsh Ln and Wemborough Rd to line of route 3 0.13% Extend to Harrow 3 0.13% Serve Fryent Way 2 0.08% Go Marsh Lane & along the lower end of Old Church Lane to join up with Abercorn Road. 2 0.08% Extend to Brent Cross Shopping Park via Staples Corner Cineworld (or vice versa) 2 0.08% Extend to Edgware (via Stonegrove to Stanmore 2 0.08% Don't use Marsh Lane or Honeypot Lane. 2 0.08% Should also link Hendon Central station with Colindale Station and RAF museum. 2 0.08% Serve Hendon, Brent St 1 0.04% Serve Grahame Park/Aerodrome Road through to Hendon Way 1 0.04%

Greyhound Way to allow access for council offices in Hendon (inc Town Hall) 1 0.04% Loop around Gordon Avenue, The Chase, Uxbridge Rd in Stanmore 1 0.04% Serve Honeypot Lane between Stanmore and Queensbury Circle 1 0.04% Omit Kingsbury 1 0.04% Run via the Hyde and Colindeep Lane 1 0.04% Serve Hendon, the Burroughs 1 0.04% Serve Edgware Rd rather than Roe Green and Hay Lane 1 0.04% Weston Drive, Kenton Lane to Streatfield Road 1 0.04% Serve Audley Road in Hendon 1 0.04% Serve Kenton Lane/Library 1 0.04% Extend to Bushey 1 0.04% Omit Kingsbury 1 0.04% Serve The Mall in Kingsbury for JFS 1 0.04% Extend to Mill Hill East from Brent Cross 1 0.04% Serve Stanmore Swaminarayan Temple and Bentley Grove 1 0.04% Extend to Wembley 1 0.04%

Summary of responses - TfL Consultations · 2010-11-15 · A street-by-street analysis of responses...

Documents

Transcript of Summary of responses - TfL Consultations · 2010-11-15 · A street-by-street analysis of responses...