2018 12 19 TFL OOC Stations Potential London Overground Stations Old Oak Response To Issues Raised

Potential London Overground Stations
at Old Oak
Response to issues raised report
December 2018
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK
CONTENTS
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ 3

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ 5
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 7
2. Structure of the document ............................................................................................. 9
3. Issues raised about the Old Oak Common Lane station ............................................... 10
4. Issues raised about Victoria Road bridge ....................................................................... 19
5. Issues raised about Hythe Road station ........................................................................ 24
6. Issues raised about the consultation process ............................................................... 33
7. Issues raised about environmental impacts .................................................................. 36
8. Issues raised about construction impacts ..................................................................... 42
9. Issues raised about potential economic impacts .......................................................... 46
10. Issues raised that were out of scope ......................................................................... 50
11. Issues raised about potential local road impacts ....................................................... 53
12. Issues raised about impacts on the current transport network .................................. 56
13. Issues raised about suggested connections ............................................................... 60
14. Next steps ................................................................................................................ 68
Appendix 1: Summary of the proposals for Hythe Road station ........................................... 69
Appendix 2: Summary of the proposals for Old Oak Common Lane station ........................ 72
Appendix 3: Summary of the proposals for Victoria Road bridge ......................................... 75
Page 1
Page 2
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Potential locations of new London Overground stations ...................................... 7

Figure A.1-1: Legible London view of the potential Hythe Road station below .................... 69
Figure A.1-2: Illustrative visualisation of Hythe Road station (1) ........................................... 70
Figure A.2-1: Legible London view of the potential Old Oak Common Lane station ............ 72
Figure A.2-2: Illustrative visualisation of Old Oak Common Lane station (1) ........................ 73
Figure A.3-1: An illustrative image of Old Oak Common Lane station and possible overpass
to Victoria Road .................................................................................................................. 75
Page 3
Page 4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Old Oak Common Lane station .......................... 12
Table 4.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Victoria Road bridge ........................................... 20
Table 5.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Hythe Road station ............................................ 26
Table 6.1: Responses to Issues Raised about the Consultation Process............................... 34
Table 7.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Potential Environmental Impacts ................... 37
Table 8.1: Responses to issues Raised about Potential Construction Impacts ..................... 43
Table 9.1: Responses to issues Raised about Potential Economic impacts .......................... 47
Table 10.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Out of Scope Issues .................................... 51
Table 11.1: Responses to issues Raised about Potential Local Road Impacts ...................... 54
Table 12.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Impacts on the Current Transport Network . 57
Table 13.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Suggested Connections ............................... 62
Page 5
Page 6
1. Introduction
1.1. This report sets out TfL’s responses to the issues raised during the public
consultation conducted between 16 October and 22 November 2017 on two
potential new London Overground stations at Old Oak1. This report follows the
Consultation Report2 that was published in December 2017.
1.2. The consultation focused on capturing public and stakeholder views on proposals for
two new London Overground stations at Old Oak, sited on the West London line at
Hythe Road and on the North London line at Old Oak Common Lane. This followed
an earlier public consultation on possible station location options, carried out in
autumn 2014. The proposed location of each station is shown below at Figure 1-1.
1.3. Old Oak and Park Royal is one of London’s largest Opportunity Areas and one of the
largest development sites in the country, with the ambition to deliver a whole new
centre and community for west London which includes 25,500 new homes and
65,000 jobs. Old Oak is the only place where High Speed 2 (HS2), the new high speed
railway between London, the Midlands and the North, meets the Elizabeth line,
London’s new East-West railway. A new station at Old Oak Common will open in
2026, providing both connections to the Elizabeth line, HS2 and National Rail services
and forming a hub for regeneration.
Figure 1-1: Potential locations of new London Overground stations
1 See https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/london-overground/old-oak-common/
2 See https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/london-overground/old-oak-common/user_uploads/old-oak-common-
london-overground-consultation-report-2017.pdf
Page 7
1.4. In 2014 we consulted on the idea of providing further transport connections to the
London Overground network at Old Oak with three options proposed. Over 83 per
cent of respondents either supported or strongly supported this idea. There was also
a clear preference for Option C which suggested two new London Overground
stations; one at Hythe Road on the West London line and one at Old Oak Common
Lane on the North London line.
1.5. Following the 2014 consultation, and supported with funding from the European
Commission, we have worked up initial design proposals for both stations. Working
closely with Network Rail and the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation
(OPDC) the designs have developed, leading to a single preferred option for each
station. We have also worked closely with OPDC to ensure these designs would
integrate with the proposals set out in their draft Local Plan.
1.6. We received 911 responses to the 2017 consultation, 865 of which were received
through the consultation website and provided a quantified opinion on the proposals.
Of these 865 respondents, 94 per cent supported or strongly supported our
proposals for two new London Overground stations at Old Oak.
1.7. 86 per cent supported or strongly supported the proposals for a new station at Hythe
Road, and 92 per cent supported or strongly supported the proposals for a new
station at Old Oak Common Lane. Additionally, 88 per cent supported the
construction of a bridge linking Victoria Road to the station at Old Oak Common
Lane. More information on the responses received can be found in our Consultation
Report3 (December 2017.
Page 8
2. Structure of the document
2.1. Since the consultation closed, we have analysed the results and considered how they
can, where appropriate, inform the further development of the Old Oak Overground
Stations proposals. Our work is ongoing as designing two new stations on already
busy sections of railway that would integrates with the planned HS2/Elizabeth line
station at Old Oak is a complex task.
2.2. The remainder of this report addresses the specific issues raised through the public
consultation associated with each of the proposed station options, and the Victoria
Road bridge option, along with the other issues raised.
2.3. The structure of the remainder of this report, and guidance on how to navigate it is
set out below:
Sections 3 to 13: Issues raised by all respondents to the consultation and their
responses by theme
i The key themes are identified in the titles of each section from section 3 through
to section 13 respectively, and these key issues follow the order of questions as
presented during the consultation and correspond to the issues identified in the
Consultation Report4.
ii Within each section 3 to 13 respectively, the issues identified under the theme
concerned are shown at the front of the section.
iii After the list of issues at the front of a section, the responses are contained in
the following tables, from Table 3.1 to Table 13.1 respectively.
iv In some cases, an issue raised may also be very closely related to one or more
other issue raised. Where this is the case the linked issue elsewhere in the
document is clearly identified.
v Some issues correspond to issues raised in the 2014 consultation. Where this is
the case, this is made clear in the response.
Section 14: Next steps
vi Section 14 summarises the next steps in the development of these proposals.
Appendices 1 to 3: Consultation information about station options and the potential
bridge to Victoria Road
vii Finally, a copy of the consultation information referring to the station options and
the potential bridge to Victoria Road consulted upon is included at Appendices 1
to 3 of this report.
Page 9
3. Issues raised about the potential Old Oak Common Lane station
Ref Main issues raised
1 I suggest that Old Oak Common Lane station should feature passive provision to
allow for a future station on the Dudding Hill
2 I suggest that an alternative station is provided on the Dudding Hill line at Victoria
Road
3 I suggest that a curve to connect West London line (Clapham Junction) trains to the
planned Elizabeth line platforms and an additional curve to connect to the North
London line towards Willesden Junction is provided.
4 I suggest that that the proposed Old Oak Common Lane station is built first
5 Retaining green space around the proposal site is important for local people
6 I am concerned about the loss of parking spaces for residents of Midland Terrace if
the proposals are implemented
7 I am concerned about the Travelling Community occupying local land during
construction
8 I am concerned that these plans are too intrusive, and will be opposed by local
residents
9 I suggest that retail outlets are also provided as part of the station
10 I suggest that visitor accommodation (ie hotels) is provided as part of the station
11 I suggest that Old Oak Common Lane station has a turn-back facility
12 I suggest that that all station platforms allow for reversal in both directions
13 I suggest that the station is able to accommodate potential Basingstoke to Stansted

services
14 I suggest that that Old Oak Common Lane station features four platforms
15 I suggest providing an alternative station at Acton Wells
16 I am concerned that Old Oak Common Lane station is too close to Willesden
Junction station
17 I am concerned that Old Oak Common Lane and Hythe Road stations are too close
18 I suggest that the station should connect with the Central line
19 I suggest improving connections between Old Oak Common Lane and Willesden
Junction
Page 10
20 I am concerned that that the planned interchange between Old Oak Common Lane
station and the HS2/Elizabeth line station is too long
21 I suggest that the interchange must be accessible for passengers with reduced
mobility
22 I suggest that a pedestrian link between Hythe Road station and Old Oak Common
Lane station is created
23 I suggest that the station is opened in 2021 at the latest
24 I suggest downgrading Hythe Road station proposals to ensure that Old Oak Common
Lane station is completed
25 I am concerned that the station design is not aesthetically pleasing

26 I suggest building the station sub-surface
27 I am concerned that there is not enough space for the station to be constructed
28 I am concerned that the station design is multi-level, rather than single level
29 I am concerned about an increase in crime on Midland Terrace if a station entrance is

constructed there
30 I am concerned about an increase in illegal parking on Midland Terrace if a station
entrance is constructed there
31 I am concerned that TfL has abandoned promises to local residents that an underpass
would be the preferred proposal option
Page 11
Table 3.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Old Oak Common Lane station
Ref Main issues raised TfL response
1 I suggest that Old Oak Response 1: The proposals for the two new Overground stations at Old Oak have been developed
Common Lane station should to provide a new link between existing services on the West and North London lines and the new
feature passive provision to transport services, including HS2 and the Elizabeth line, and homes and jobs planned at Old Oak.
allow for a future station on Although not part of the plans outlined in the consultation, the proposals for the Old Oak
the Dudding Hill line. Common Lane station do not preclude the future provision of a station on the Dudding Hill line. In
fact, separate proposals for a West London Orbital Line between Hounslow and Hendon and/or
West Hampstead have been outlined in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (2018). Such a service
would utilise the current freight only Dudding Hill line that joins the North London line in the Old
Oak Common Lane area and could include a station at this location. This proposal is however at a
very early stage of development.
2 I suggest that an alternative Response 2: Any station on the Dudding Hill line at Victoria Road would not serve existing services
station is provided on the on the North London line, therefore it is not considered an alternative to the proposed station at
Dudding Hill line at Victoria Old Oak Common Lane. We are however conscious of separate proposals for a new West London
Road. Orbital service, and as such the proposals for Old Oak Common Lane station do not preclude the
delivery of future platforms at this location. Please also refer to Response 1.
3 I suggest that a curve to Response 3: A number of alternative station locations, and associated track changes were
connect West London line previously considered for linking London Overground services to the Old Oak area and the planned
(Clapham Junction) trains to new HS2, Elizabeth line and National Rail station including options above, and adjacent to this
the planned Elizabeth line station. This work formed the basis of our public consultation in Autumn 2014. Further detail on
platforms and an additional this consultation, including background information can be found here5.
curve to connect to the North
London line towards Willesden
Junction is provided.
5 See https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/london-overground/old-oak-common-2014/
Page 12
4 I suggest that that the Response 4: It is likely that the building of the stations would need to happen in sequence given
proposed Old Oak Common the need to minimise disruption to rail services. The final delivery programme has yet to be
Lane station is built first finalised as a funding strategy has yet to be confirmed.
(before Hythe Road station).
5 Retaining green space around Response 5: The current proposals may require some realignment of the existing community
the proposal site is important garden and parking area for the dwellings of Shaftsbury Gardens. Any future changes to the
for local people. proposals would be subject to further public consultation and appropriate assessment and
mitigation, including an Environmental Impact Assessment.
6 I am concerned about the loss Response 6: The current proposal does not encroach on existing parking facilities on Midland
of parking spaces for residents Terrace. Any changes to the proposals would be subject to further public consultation and the
of Midland Terrace if the design taken forward to planning permission would be subject to a full Environmental Impact
proposals are implemented. Assessment including a Transport Assessment which would assess the impact of any possible loss
of parking.
7 I am concerned about the Response 7: These proposals would not impact any existing gypsy and traveller sites. TfL would
Travelling Community ensure appropriate site security at all times during the period of construction to prevent any
occupying local land during unauthorised occupation. These measures would be confirmed through a Code of Construction
construction. Practice which would be approved by the local planning authority and the contractor would be
required to implement and abide by this as part of the planning permission for works.
8 I am concerned that these Response 8: The station would be designed to minimise disruption to the local community as far
plans are too intrusive, and will as reasonably practicable including to eliminate and/or reduce visual and noise intrusions. Further
be opposed by local residents. design work would take place as part of the next stage of work, and this would be subject to
further public consultation. The design taken forward to planning permission would be subject to a
full Environmental Impact Assessment which would assess the impact of the station on local
residents.
Page 13
9 I suggest that retail outlets are Response 9: The provision of retail and potential other uses within the proposed Old Oak
also provided as part of the Common Lane station has been examined as part of design work. Any further design work would
station. be undertaken in line with TfL’s commercial strategy and would be subject to further public
consultation.
10 I suggest that visitor Response 10: Other uses are expected to be included within the proposed station and would be
accommodation (ie hotels) is examined further as part of future design work. Any further design work would be undertaken in
provided as part of the station. line with TfL’s commercial strategy and would be subject to further public consultation. Please
also refer to Response 9.
11 I suggest that Old Oak Response 11: The current design for Old Oak Common Lane does not include provision for a turn
Common Lane station has a back facility at the station. The signalling at the station has been designed only for through trains to
turn-back facility. run on the North London Line as per the current service pattern. However, to the north, a turnback
sidings facility is provided north of Willesden Junction High Level station. There are currently no
turnback facilities to the south.
12 I suggest that that all station Response 12: There is no proposal for a turn back facility at this station. Please also refer to
platforms allow for reversal in Response 11.
both directions.
13 I suggest that the station is Response 13: This is not a service that TfL is investigating and we are unaware that any such
able to accommodate service is proposed by Network Rail or any rail operator at this time.
potential Basingstoke to
Stansted services.
14 I suggest that that Old Oak Response 14: The current design for Old Oak Common Lane only includes an island platform (2
Common Lane station platform facings) to cater for northbound and southbound NLL services. There are no existing or
features four platforms. proposed future services for which four platforms at OOCL on the NLL would be required.
Page 14
15 I suggest providing an Response 15: A number of alternative station locations were previously considered for linking
alternative station at Acton London Overground services to the Old Oak area and the planned new HS2, Elizabeth line and
Wells. National Rail station including an option at Acton Wells. This work formed the basis of our public
consultation in Autumn 2014. Further detail on this consultation, including background information
can be found here6. Please also refer to Response 3.
16 I am concerned that Old Oak Response 16: Operationally there is no issue with the location of the proposed station relative to
Common Lane station is too Willesden Junction station. If built, the stations would be no closer together than many other
close to Willesden Junction stations on the London Overground network. Furthermore the location of the proposed Old Oak
station. Common Lane station is intended to best serve both the planned HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail
station and the existing and planned communities at Old Oak. Please also refer to Response 3.
17 I am concerned that Old Oak Response 17: The two lines on which these stations lie serve different destinations to the south
Common Lane and Hythe and are designed to each connect to the HS2 and Elizabeth line station and the wider Old Oak area
Road stations are too close from those directions, not to each other. Therefore there is no duplication of service. Please also
together. refer to Response 3.
18 I suggest that the station Response 18: The location of the proposed stations is intended to best serve both the planned
should connect with the HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station and the existing and planned communities at Old Oak.
Central line. Whilst connecting to the Central line would also be advantageous, the location of the respective
stations means that directly connecting to the Central line and HS2, the Elizabeth line and National
rail services is not possible.
6 See https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/london-overground/old-oak-common-2014/.
Page 15
19 I suggest improving Response 19: The provision of a new station at Old Oak Common Lane would provide a direct rail
connections between Old Oak link between Willesden Junction, Old Oak Common Lane and on to the planned HS2/Elizabeth
Common Lane and Willesden line/National Rail station. Separately from the plans for the new station, the OPDC are developing
Junction. plans for Old Oak that will create a new centre for West London including many new connections
across the area. Without the new station, the quickest link between Old Oak Common Lane and
Willesden Junction would be via Old Oak Lane. Please also refer to Response 16.
20 I am concerned that that the Response 20: The proposed Old Oak Common Lane station is located as close as possible to the
planned interchange between planned HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station. The interchange distance between these two
Old Oak Common Lane stations is approximately 350 metres. We are working closely with HS2 and OPDC to ensure that a
station and the HS2/Elizabeth high quality pedestrian link is provided between the stations. Both the station and interchange
line station is too long. facilities would be designed to comply with the latest accessibility standards and existing legal
requirements upon TfL including the Equality Act 2010.
21 I suggest that the interchange Response 21: The proposed Old Oak Common Lane station is located as close as possible to the
must be accessible for planned HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station. The interchange distance between the two
passengers with reduced stations is approximately 350 metres. We are working closely with HS2 and OPDC to ensure that a
mobility. high quality pedestrian link is provided between the stations. Both the station and interchange
facilities will be designed to comply with the Equality Act 2010.
22 I suggest that a pedestrian link Response 22: The OPDC are developing plans for Old Oak that will create a new centre for West
between Hythe Road station London including many new connections across the area including links to, and between the two
and Old Oak Common Lane potential new Overground stations and the planned HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station. Please
station is created. also refer to Response 17.
23 I suggest that the station is Response 23: The station at Old Oak Common Lane is proposed to be open by 2026 to connect
opened in 2021 at the latest. with the new HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station. A more detailed construction timeline
would be developed as part of the next stage of work. Please also refer to Response 4.
Page 16
24 I suggest downgrading Hythe Response 24: Both potential stations are proposed to be open by 2026 to connect with the new
Road station proposals to HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station. A more detailed construction timeline for both stations
ensure that Old Oak Common would be developed as part of the next stage of work. Please refer to Response 4.
Lane station is completed.
25 I am concerned that the Response 25: The station would be designed to best serve both passengers and the local
station design is not community in both function and design. Further design work will take place as part of the next
aesthetically pleasing. stage of work, and this would be subject to further public consultation. The design taken forward
to planning permission would be subject to a full Environmental Impact Assessment which would
include a Design and Access Statement and would assess the impact of the station design. Please
26 I suggest building the station Response 26: This station would serve London Overground services along the existing surface
sub-surface. railway. There is no proposal to design and construct the station as a sub-surface station as this
would require significant works to lower the tracks. An earlier stage of design considered but
discounted a sub-surface station entrance and ticket hall that would have been located beneath
the platforms. Information on this option was provided as part of the public consultation7. The
construction of underground (sub-surface) station infrastructure would not provide any additional
journey time benefits while being significantly more expensive and environmentally disruptive to
construct.
27 I am concerned that there is Response 27: Proposed worksite locations would be presented as part of a future public
not enough space for the consultation. Work has been undertaken to confirm that the station based on the current design
station to be constructed. can be constructed.
7See https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/london-overground/old-oak-common/user_uploads/2017-ooc-consultation-summary-of-the-options-assessment-for-oocl-final-
update.pdf
Page 17
28 I am concerned that the Response 28: The proposed station has an upper concourse level above the railway tracks and a
station design is multi-level, lower, platform level only. The concourse level needs to be at a different level to the tracks to
rather than single level. enable access to the platforms. Further design work would take place as part of the next stage of
work, and this would be subject to further public consultation. The design taken forward to
planning permission would be subject to a full Environmental Impact Assessment which would
include a Design and Access Statement and would assess the impact of the station design. Please
29 I am concerned about an Response 29: TfL would act to minimise the risk of crime, or perception of crime, in the vicinity of
increase in crime on Midland the new station, including on Midland Terrace. In particular, we would work with partners including
Terrace if a station entrance is the Local Highway Authority, the Police and neighbourhood groups regarding the management and
constructed there. mitigation of these effects.
TfL would design the station and interchange facilities to comply with the latest safety and security
standards. Any future changes to the proposals would be subject to further public consultation.
30 I am concerned about an Response 30: In the event that an entrance is constructed on Midland Terrace, TfL would work
increase in illegal parking on with local residents and the local authority to ensure that there was no illegal parking on Midland
Midland Terrace if a station Terrace. Please also refer to Response 6.
entrance is constructed there.
31 I am concerned that TfL has Response 31: TfL has carried out a thorough assessment of both bridge and underpass options to
abandoned promises to local link the proposed Old Oak Common lane station to Victoria Road and enable better access from
residents that an underpass the Park Royal area to Old Oak and the planned HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station. The
would be the preferred outcome of this assessment and the conclusion that a bridge was the preferred option was
proposal option. included as part of the public consultation in autumn 2017. This represents the latest position on
the proposals and does not represent any abandoned promises. The design of the bridge will
further evolve through any further design work should it be taken forward.
Page 18
4. Issues raised about the potential bridge to Victoria Road
32 I am concerned about the personal security of bridge users

33 I am concerned that the bridge will be unsightly
34 I am concerned over structural integrity of the potential bridge

35 I believe that a bridge is needed to connect Victoria Road to Old Oak Common Lane
36 I am concerned that the bridge will be unsuitable for cyclists
37 I am concerned that any failure to provide the bridge at the time of the station’s
opening will cause disruption for residents of Shaftesbury Gardens
38 I am concerned that there is not sufficient demand to justify the construction of the
bridge
39 I am concerned that there will not be any public access to the bridge (ie only
accessible by passengers)
40 I suggest that the bridge must be accessible, ie step free
41 I suggest that the bridge should link with the potential West London orbital route on
the Dudding Hill line
42 I suggest that the bridge should not require cyclists to dismount
43 I suggest that the bridge is future proofed to serve potential new developments
44 I suggest that the bridge designs and placement should consider the privacy of local
residents
45 I suggest that the construction of Old Oak Common Lane station is prioritised over
construction of the bridge
46 I oppose shared space for pedestrians and cyclists
47 I suggest that a pedestrian and cycling route should be provided linking Old Oak
Common Lane station with the Grand Union Canal
Page 19
Table 4.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Victoria Road bridge
32 I am concerned about the Response 32: TfL would design all facilities including the proposed bridge to comply with the latest
personal security of bridge safety and security standards. Any future changes to the proposals would be subject to further
users. public consultation, and the design taken forward to planning permission would be subject to a full
Environmental Impact Assessment that would assess the impact of the scheme on bridge users.
Please also refer to Response 29.
33 I am concerned that the bridge Response 33: TfL would design the bridge to minimise disruption to the local community to
will be unsightly. include elements to eliminate and/or reduce visual and noise disruptions. Any design taken forward
to planning permission would be subject to a full Environmental Impact Assessment which would
include an assessment of the impact of the bridge design while ensuring that any mitigations meet
railways safety standards.
34 I am concerned over structural Response 34: The bridge would be structurally sound and would be designed to comply with the
integrity of the potential latest engineering and safety standards and be approved by Network Rail as the owner of the
bridge. infrastructure.
35 I believe that a bridge is Response 35: Although the provision of an overpass to Victoria Road is not a requirement of the
needed to connect Victoria potential station, the design would allow for this to be provided, either at the same time as the
Road to Old Oak Common station or at a later date. If such a bridge were provided it would substantially reduce the distance
Lane station. required to access the planned Old Oak Common station from Victoria Road and the Park Royal
area. The decision to proceed with such a link is not confirmed and would be subject to
further review, the availability of funding and discussions with local stakeholders including
residents, landowners and OPDC.
36 I am concerned that the bridge Response 36: The bridge proposals allow for suitable cycle segregation from pedestrian traffic.
will be unsuitable for cyclists.
Page 20
37 I am concerned that any failure Response 37: No direct access to Old Oak Common Lane station would be provided from
to provide the bridge at the Shaftesbury Gardens and the provision of a pedestrian bridge would not change this situation. If
time of the station’s opening the bridge is not provided however, the route to access the station from Shaftsbury Gardens would
will cause disruption for be longer than if the bridge were not constructed.
residents of Shaftesbury
Gardens.
38 I am concerned that there is Response 38: The proposed bridge would serve both passengers accessing the proposed Old Oak
not sufficient demand to Common Lane Overground station as well as people accessing the Old Oak area and HS2/Elizabeth
justify the construction of the Line/National Rail station from Victoria Road and the wider Park Royal area. As the scheme
bridge. develops TfL will review passenger and development area forecasts to ensure that demand is
sufficient to justify any proposal. This would be reported in any further consultation.
39 I am concerned that there will Response 39: If the bridge were constructed it would be fully accessible to both passengers and
not be any public access to the general public. It would not be a requirement to enter the station to use the bridge. Please also
the bridge (ie only accessible refer to Response 36.
by passengers).
40 I suggest that the bridge must Response 40: If constructed the bridge would be fully accessible and would provide step free
be accessible, ie step free. access from Victoria Road to Old Oak Common Lane as well as to Old Oak Common Lane station.
As with the stations designs TfL will be subject to the Equality Act 2010 and other legal
requirements. Please also refer to Response 36.
Page 21
41 I suggest that the bridge Response 41: The proposed bridge is intended to serve the possible Old Oak Common Lane
should link with the potential station and to better link the Park Royal and Old Oak areas. Separate proposals for a West London
West London orbital route on Orbital Line between Hounslow and Hendon and/or West Hampstead have been outlined in the
the Dudding Hill line. Mayor’s Transport Strategy (2018). Such a service would utilise the current freight only Dudding Hill
line that joins the North London line in the Old Oak Common Lane area and could include a
station at this location. This proposal is however at a very early stage of development. Please also
refer to Response 1.
42 I suggest that the bridge Response 42: The current bridge design provides a step free route for cyclists through the use of
should not require cyclists to lifts. As such, cyclists would need to dismount prior to using the bridge. This design has been
dismount. influenced by the amount of space available which limits to ability to employ ramps. The design
would however be reviewed as part of any future design phase. Please also refer to Response 36.
43 I suggest that the bridge is Response 43: The Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation covers London's largest
future proofed to serve development area and access to homes and jobs is at the heart of the scheme. The proposed
potential new developments. bridge is intended to serve the new developments proposed in the area better linking them to one
another, and Old Oak Common Lane station. Please also refer to Response 38.
44 I suggest that the bridge Response 44: In the event that it is constructed, TfL would design the bridge to respect the privacy
designs and placement should of local residents. Any design taken forward to planning permission would be subject to a full
consider the privacy of local Environmental Impact Assessment which would include an assessment of the impact of the bridge
residents. design. Please also refer to Response 29.
45 I suggest that the construction Response 45: Old Oak Common Lane station has been designed in such a way as it could function
of Old Oak Common Lane with or without the proposed bridge to Victoria Road. Any decision of prioritisation between
station is prioritised over different elements of the proposals will be made as part of the next stage of work, informed by the
construction of the bridge. response to this consultation. Please also refer to Response 4.
Page 22
46 I oppose shared space for Response 46: If constructed the bridge would allow for suitable cycle segregation from
pedestrians and cyclists. pedestrians. The design and layout of the bridge would be reviewed as part of any future design
phase. Please also refer to Response 36.
47 I suggest that a pedestrian and Response 47: The Grand Union Canal is in very close proximity to the proposed Old Oak Common
cycling route should be Lane station and is already bridged over by Old Oak Common Lane. TfL would work with the Local
provided linking Old Oak Highway Authority to investigate measures to increase pedestrian and cycle safety on the route
Common Lane station with between the proposed station forecourt and the canal access.
the Grand Union Canal.
Page 23
5. Issues raised about the potential Hythe Road station
48 I suggest creating a connection with the West Coast Mainline at the proposed Hythe
Road Overground station
49 I suggest routing trains from Richmond through new platforms at Willesden Junction if
Hythe Road Overground station is not constructed
50 I am concerned that the proposed Hythe Road station will be located too far from
HS2/Elizabeth line station to provide effective interchange
51 I am concerned that the Wormwood Scrubs green area will be negatively affected by
the proposals
52 I am concerned that the proposals will destroy existing community

53 I am concerned that jobs will be lost as a result of the proposals
54 I suggest that retail outlets are also provided in the station development
55 I suggest that the Hythe Road station features a connection to the potential Gatwick-
Milton Keynes line
56 I suggest that the Hythe Road station features passive provision for a future
connection with Chiltern Railways services
57 I am concerned that the proposals do not provide adequate connectivity between
modes and services given the scale of the plans
58 I am concerned that the structural integrity of road bridges on Scrubs Lane will not be
sufficient to handle an increase in road traffic
59 I suggest locating Hythe Road station further south
60 I suggest that all platforms at Hythe Road station allow for train reversal in both
directions
61 I suggest an alternative station location at Scrubs Lane to accommodate the Southern

Railway service to Milton Keynes
62 I suggest an alternative station location at the embankment on Scrubs Lane

63 I suggest an alternative station location south of the junction between rail branches,
towards Wembley Central and Willesden Junction High Level
64 I suggest building terminating platforms for trains to and from Clapham Junction
alongside the Elizabeth line platforms
Page 24
65 I suggest a connection from Clapham Junction to Great Western Old Oak Common,
with a further loop to Willesden Junction or Cricklewood line
66 I suggest that Hythe Road station features three platforms instead of two, to allow
creation of passive provision for Willesden Junction bound trains
67 I suggest that the proposals provide a link to Acton Central
68 I am concerned that the Hythe Road station is too close to Willesden Junction station
69 I am concerned that travel times from Willesden Junction to Clapham Junction and
Shepherds Bush/Olympia will increase
70 I am concerned over the route due to gradient between Mitre Bridge Junction and
Willesden Junction High Level
71 I am concerned that the turn-back service at Hythe Road station is of limited benefit
to passengers
72 I suggest that further information is provided on where Hythe Road station will appear
on the Overground map
73 I suggest that an interchange with the West Coast Main line should be considered
74 I am concerned that the details on the design of the wider area have not been
forthcoming from Old Oak Park Royal Development Corporation
75 I am concerned that the interchange between services will be out of station
76 I oppose construction of a viaduct

77 I suggest the renaming of the station
78 I suggest providing a cycling and walking link between Hythe Road station and the
Grand Union Canal
Page 25
Table 5.1: Responses to Issues Raised for Hythe Road station
48 I suggest creating a connection Response 48: Hythe Road station will be served by London Overground services which call at
with the West Coast Mainline Willesden Junction station, one station to the north, providing interchange with London
at the proposed Hythe Road Overground services between London Euston and Watford Junction on the WCML. The new
Overground station. station would also provide an interchange with the new HS2 line which parallels the WCML to the
south as well as connection to Elizabeth line and National Rail services.
49 I suggest routing trains from Response 49; It is not proposed that services from Richmond would serve Hythe Road station.
Richmond through new Either with or without Hythe Road station, current services on the NLL from Richmond would still
platforms at Willesden operate and would continue to serve Willesden Junction station and the new Old Oak Common
Junction if Hythe Road Lane station.
Overground station is not
constructed.
50 I am concerned that the Response 50: The proposed Hythe Road station is located as close as possible to the planned
proposed Hythe Road station HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station. The interchange distance between the two stations is
will be located too far from approximately 700 metres. We are working closely with HS2 and OPDC to ensure that a high
HS2/Elizabeth line station to quality pedestrian link can be provided between the stations. Both the station and interchange
provide effective interchange. links would be designed to comply with the latest accessibility standards and existing legal
requirements upon TfL. Please also refer to Response 20.
51 I am concerned that the Response 51: Both Hythe Road station and Old Oak Common Lane proposed station locations are
Wormwood Scrubs green area located a considerable distance from Wormwood Scrubs. It is highly unlikely that TfL would require
will be negatively affected by any of this land for a worksite, and the permanent station proposals do not impact on the
the proposals. Wormwood Scrubs at all.
52 I am concerned that the Response 52: The proposal would increase the access levels enjoyed by the local community
proposals will destroy existing through better and faster connectivity to the surrounding areas. No residential properties are
community. required to deliver this project and the stations will be built on existing railway infrastructure
already served by frequent rail services.
Page 26
53 I am concerned that jobs will Response 53: The OPDC estimates that 65,000 jobs will be created through its Local Plan and the
be lost as a result of the new station would increase the likelihood of new employers locating to the area due to the
proposals. improved connectivity.
54 I suggest that retail outlets are Response 54: The provision of retail and potential other uses within the proposed Hythe Road
also provided in the station station has been examined as part of design work. Any further design work would be undertaken in
development. line with TfL’s commercial strategy and would be subject to further public consultation. Please
55 I suggest that the Hythe Road Response 55: Any train service between Milton Keynes and Gatwick Airport would utilise a
station features a connection different set of tracks to those proposed for Hythe Road station. As such, the station would need
to the potential Gatwick- to be relocated to serve trains between Milton Keynes and Gatwick. This does not form part of the
Milton Keynes line. current proposal as such a station would be unable to accommodate London Overground services.
56 I suggest that the Hythe Road Response 56: The Department for Transport are currently investigating provision for a Chiltern Line
station features passive connection as part of the HS2 station design. Such an interchange at the proposed Hythe Road
provision for a future station is currently not being investigated.
connection with Chiltern
Railways services.
57 I am concerned that the Response 57: The proposed Hythe Road station is located within walking distance of the planned
proposals do not provide HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station at Old Oak. It would provide a one-stop connection to the
adequate connectivity Bakerloo line and other London Overground services at Willesden Junction and to the Central line
between modes and services at Shepherds Bush. TfL and the OPDC are also in the process of designing a Bus Strategy for the
given the scale of the plans. area which will interlink to the project.
Page 27
58 I am concerned that the Response 58: Scrubs Lane is an existing busy main road which is considered to be structurally
structural integrity of road sound. It continues to safely carry traffic including heavy goods vehicles. The Old Oak and Park
bridges on Scrubs Lane will not Royal Development Corporation’s local plan contains polices to restrict vehicle movements
be sufficient to handle an through Old Oak North area. Please also refer to Response 1.
increase in road traffic
59 I suggest locating Hythe Road Response 59: Locating the proposed station to the south would mean that the station would be
station further south. less able to serve the Old Oak area and would reduce the ease of interchange to the planned
HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station. Please also refer to Response 55.
60 I suggest that all platforms at Response 60: The station has been designed to reflect current and future services planned for the
Hythe Road station allow for area when the station opens. The provision of the third platform allows for train reversing in both
train reversal in both directions.
directions.
61 I suggest an alternative station Response 61: Locating the station to the south, adjacent to Scrubs Lane is not preferred as this
location at Scrubs Lane to would mean that the station would be significantly less able to serve the Old Oak area and would
accommodate the Southern reduce the ease of interchange to the planned HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station. Please also
Railway service to Milton refer to Response 55, Response 59 and Response 168.
Keynes.
62 I suggest an alternative station Response 62: Please refer to Response 61.

location at the embankment
on Scrubs Lane.
Page 28
63 I suggest an alternative station Response 63: The cost and complexity of such a scheme would make it unfeasible and would not
location south of the junction achieve the scheme objective which is to link communities in west London served by the London
between rail branches, Overground to the HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station at Old Oak and support growth in the
towards Wembley Central and Old Oak area.
Willesden Junction High Level.
64 I suggest building terminating Response 64: Such a proposal would not serve London Overground services on the West London
platforms for trains to and line or Southern services between Clapham Junction and Milton Keynes and thus would add
from Clapham Junction relatively little additional connectivity. Please also refer to Response 164.
alongside the Elizabeth line
platforms.
65 I suggest a connection from Response 65: The proposed station at Hythe Road provides connections to Willesden Junction,
Clapham Junction to Great Clapham Junction and then via an interchange to many more destinations. An interchange will be
Western Old Oak Common, available to Elizabeth line Great Western at the planned Old Oak Common HS2/Elizabeth
with a further loop to line/National rail station. No rail services currently run between the Old Oak area and
Willesden Junction or Cricklewood. However, separate plans for a West London Orbital service are under consideration
Cricklewood line. by TfL. As such, an infrastructure solution providing new rail links between these routes is not
considered necessary. Please also refer to Response 1 and Response 64.
66 I suggest that Hythe Road Response 66: The third platform provides an option to turn back Southern services that currently
station features three terminate at Shepherds Bush. Two platforms will provide less operational flexibility for services
platforms instead of two, to than three platforms, however this arrangement would still allow for London Overground services
allow creation of passive to Willesden Junction.
provision for Willesden
Junction bound trains.
Page 29
67 I suggest that the proposals Response 67: A direct link to Acton Central from Hythe Road station would be provided via an
provide a link to Acton interchange at Willesden Junction. Acton Central would also be served directly from Old Oak
Central. Common Lane station. Hythe Road station is also proposed to be located within walking distance
of the planned HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station at Old Oak which would provide direct
services to Acton Mainline station. Please also refer to Response 57.
68 I am concerned that the Hythe Response 68: Operationally there is no issue with the location of the proposed station relative to
Road station is too close to Willesden Junction station. If built, the stations would be no closer together than many other
Willesden Junction station. stations on the London Overground network. Furthermore, the location of the proposed Hythe
Road station is intended to best serve the planned Old Oak North development area and provide
as close a link as possible from the West London line to the planned HS2/Elizabeth line/National
Rail station. Please also refer to Response 3 and Response 16.
69 I am concerned that travel Response 69: It is expected that there would be some increase in travel time between Willesden
times from Willesden Junction Junction and stations to the south, although this would be limited in nature as only one additional
to Clapham Junction and stop is involved and we expect the overall benefits in travel time as a result of the new station to
Shepherds Bush/Olympia will outweigh any disbenefit.
increase.
70 I am concerned over the route Response 70: Existing rail services already use the route with no recorded technical difficulty and
due to gradient between Mitre design work to date has shown that a station in this area is feasible.
Bridge Junction and Willesden
Junction High Level.
71 I am concerned that the turn- Response 71: The scheme would provide additional capacity and connectivity in the peak period
back service at Hythe Road with direct services to East Croydon and other stations including Wandsworth Common, Balham
station is of limited benefit to Streatham Common, Norbury, Thornton Heath and Selhurst.
passengers.
Page 30
72 I suggest that further Response 72: This is a matter that would be confirmed nearer to the time of opening.
information is provided on
where Hythe Road station will
appear on the Overground
map.
73 I suggest that an interchange Response 73: Hythe Road station would be served by London Overground services which call at
with the West Coast Main line Willesden Junction station one station to the north, providing interchange with London
should be considered. Overground services between London Euston and Watford Junction on the WCML. The new
station would also provide an interchange with the new HS2 which parallels the WCML to the
south.
74 I am concerned that the details Response 74: The design of the local area is the responsibility of many parties. The OPDC is
on the design of the wider area providing a planning framework and vision for the local area and this is set out in its draft local plan
have not been forthcoming and supporting documents. The OPDC will also be producing Supplementary Planning Guidance,
from Old Oak Park Royal which will also be consulted on, and will also steer future development planning applications.
Development Corporation. Please also refer to Response 38.
75 I am concerned that the Response 75: Future consultations would provide more detail on proposed connectivity measures
interchange between services between the stations in the Old Oak area.
will be out of station.
76 I oppose construction of a Response 76: The provision of a viaduct is a key part of the proposed Hythe Road station. Further
viaduct. to it’s role as part of the station; providing access for local residents to frequent and reliable
London Overground services, it would allow access under the railway to the planned development
sites to the north of the current embankment, which otherwise would be severed from the
surrounding area.
Page 31
77 I suggest the renaming of the Response 77: This matter is outside the scope of this consultation. Naming of the stations would
station. be considered nearer the time of opening.
78 I suggest providing a cycling Response 78: The design of the local area including proposed walking and cycling links is the
and walking link between responsibility of the OPDC. More detail on their plans can be found in the OPDC’s draft Local Plan
Hythe Road station and the which was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for independent examination on 4 October
Grand Union Canal. 2018. Please also refer to Response 75.
Page 32
6. Issues raised about the consultation process
79 I am concerned that local residents have not been adequately consulted

80 I am concerned that a failure to consult on alternative options to the proposals will be
unlawful
81 I am concerned that residents of flats on Midland Terrace have not been adequately
consulted
82 I am concerned that the proposals offered for consultation do not align with local
development principles
83 I suggest that TfL provides alternative options for formative consultation

84 I suggest that the consultation page should have included a cost benefit analysis of the
various options
85 I suggest that more information is provided on proposal's impact on Willesden Traction
Maintenance Depot
86 I suggest that more detailed station designs are provided
Page 33
Table 6.1: Responses to Issues Raised about the Consultation Process
79 I am concerned that local Response 79: Local residents were contacted with a leaflet to addresses in the area around the
residents have not been proposed stations. Local public transport users were contacted via an email if they have registered
adequately consulted. their Oyster card with TfL. There was local advertising in newspapers and online. Meetings also
took place with resident associations in the area to promote the consultation prior to the start
date.
80 I am concerned that a failure Response 80: TfL have previously consulted on different options for the station locations in 2014.
to consult on alternative The 2014 consultation provided us with information that informed the development of preferred
options to the proposals will location options. The 2017 consultation sought views on these possible locations. Options for
be unlawful. station design and local infrastructure would be carried out at a later date in the project cycle.
81 I am concerned that residents Response 81: As part of the 2017 consultation, residents on Midland Terrace were contacted with
of flats on Midland Terrace a leaflet to inform them of the consultation. There was also local advertising in newspapers and
have not been adequately online. Meetings took place with residents’ associations in the area to promote the consultation
consulted. prior to the start date. Please also refer to Response 79.
82 I am concerned that the Response 82: We are working in partnership with the OPDC to ensure that the proposals are in line
proposals offered for with their Local Plan and emerging Supplementary Planning Guidance, as well as the Mayor’s
consultation do not align with Transport Strategy and London Plan. As the scheme design develops further, we will continue to
local development principles. work with the OPDC and other stakeholders to make sure that stations are in line with local
development principles.
83 I suggest that TfL provides Response 83: TfL have previously consulted on a number of different options for the station
alternative options for locations in 2014. The 2014 consultation provided us with information that informed the
formative consultation. development of preferred location options. Please also refer to Response 80.
Page 34
Table 6.1: Responses to Issues Raised about the Consultation Process
84 I suggest that the consultation Response 84: The costs and benefits of the scheme were presented as part of the public
page should have included a consultation. The outcome from this consultation will be an important part of the business case
cost benefit analysis of the for the proposal, and this will be updated as the plans develop.
various options.
85 I suggest that more Response 85: This proposal does not impact upon the Willesden Traction Maintenance Depot.
information is provided on
proposal's impact on
Willesden Traction
Maintenance Depot.
86 I suggest that more detailed Response 86: More detailed designs will be developed as part of the next stage of work. This will
station designs are provided. be informed by the response to this consultation and the updated designs would be consulted on
at the next stage of consultation.
Page 35
7. Issues raised about environmental impacts
87 I am concerned over the impact of the proposals on local wildlife and habitats
88 I am concerned about noise during the construction phase
89 I am concerned over the impact of proposals on trees

90 I suggest that the stations are environmentally friendly
91 I am concerned about poor air quality around the proposed sites
92 I am concerned about noise from the new rail lines
93 I suggest that existing environmental problems need to be addressed

94 I suggest that more trees are provided with the stations to improve air quality locally
95 I suggest that the relevant agencies work together to maximise sustainability of the
proposals
96 I suggest that the station buildings feature solar power
97 I suggest that the proposals include charging points for electric vehicles
98 I support the proposals due to the limited impact on historic buildings
99 I suggest that any new rail lines are built underground to minimise noise
100 I am concerned over noise pollution affecting local residents if Old Oak Common
Lane station is built
101 I suggest that the station features nesting/breeding facilities for local species such as
bats and swifts
102 I am concerned about the increase in noise on Midland Terrace if a station entrance
constructed there
Page 36
Table 7.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Potential Environmental Impacts
87 I am concerned over the Response 87: Under these proposals, new stations would be constructed along the North London
impact of the proposals on Line and West London Line, utilising the existing railways. The proposed West London Line
local wildlife and habitats. station is partly located within a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). As such, there
is potential to affect flora and fauna, which may include protected species such as bats, reptiles
and badgers. Impacts could be mitigated by compensating, replacement or enhancement as well as
management of the remaining SINC area to support species and improve its quality. Other
mitigation could include replacement roost sites, sensitive lighting, undertaking vegetation
clearance outside of the breeding bird season, incorporating bird boxes onto retained trees and
capturing and transferring reptiles or great crested newts to a suitable receptor sites. These effects
and any proposed mitigation measures would be the subject to an Environmental Impact
Assessment.
88 I am concerned about noise Response 88: Activities during the construction phase such as demolition, construction and lorry
during the construction phase. movements are likely to generate noise and vibration which would impact upon local residents.
The construction of the proposed station along the North London Line would temporarily change
the surrounding noise environment, including likely disruption to the residential properties backing
onto the railway. The construction noise associated with the West London Line station would be
within an area characterised by commercial/ industrial uses and temporary construction noise is
likely to cause only minimal disturbance to these properties.
These would be temporary and a Construction Environmental Management Plan would be
implemented and mitigation applied to minimise the effects. Mitigation could include the use of
acoustic enclosures or portable screens surrounding construction sites, use of mains electricity
rather than generators where practicable and fitting of acoustic dampening where possible.
Page 37
89 I am concerned over the Response 89: The proposed West London Line Station would be located along the existing railway,
impact of proposals on trees. the sides of which are located partly within a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC).
Construction of the station along this narrow section of elevated track could require removal of
trackside scrub, trees and grassland during construction.
Mitigation could involve planting along railway embankment to improve the grassland habitat. Post
construction, all areas of habitat previously removed would be replaced and where possible
enhanced.
These effects and any proposed mitigation measures would be subject to an Environmental Impact
Assessment.
90 I suggest that the stations are Response 90: Further design would incorporate sustainable design principles such as the use of
environmentally friendly. sustainable materials and opportunities for water and energy efficiency.
91 I am concerned about poor air Response 91: Trains will be electrified and freight trains would not be idling at the proposed
quality around the proposed stations. The provision of a new station would be expected to lead to a mode shift to rail for some
sites. private vehicle trips, which could provide air quality benefit.
Construction would be carried out in accordance with an agreed Construction Management Plan to
mitigate air pollution during implementation of the scheme. Mitigation could include damp down
and dust or pollutants with water, ensuring a clean and tidy site and effective storage of materials.
Monitoring would be in place during construction to ensure that the mitigation is effective.
Page 38
92 I am concerned about noise Response 92: The project would introduce more trains to the network (not new rail lines); however
from the new rail lines. these are expected to be electrified and less intrusive than engine powered trains. Increases in
noise could occur from increased pedestrian flow through the station and operational plant.
Construction would be carried out in accordance with an agreed Construction Environment
Management Plan to mitigate noise pollution during implementation of the scheme. Mitigation of
potential noise impacts associated with the station would be addressed by design measures and
operating procedures. Screening would be provided alongside the station where required and a
well-designed public address system would be installed. Where there are detrimental effects,
mitigation would be implemented as part of the scheme such as the use of ballast mats, track/
check rail lubrication and noise barriers.
93 I suggest that existing Response 93: Design measures would incorporate mitigation to reduce the cumulative existing and
environmental problems need proposed impacts.
to be addressed.
94 I suggest that more trees are Response 94: Mitigation would involve planting along railway embankment to improve the
provided with the stations to grassland habitat. Post construction, all areas of habitat previously removed would be replaced and
improve air quality locally. where possible enhanced.
95 I suggest that the relevant Response 95: Further design would incorporate sustainable design principles such as the use of
agencies work together to sustainable materials and opportunities for water and energy efficiency. Please also refer to
maximise sustainability of the Response 1.
proposals.
96 I suggest that the station Response 96: Further design would incorporate sustainable design principles including
buildings feature solar power. opportunities for energy efficiency.
Page 39
97 I suggest that the proposals Response 97: Noted. This aspect will be looked into as part of further design.
include charging points for
electric vehicles.
98 I support the proposals due to Response 98: Noted.

the limited impact on historic
buildings.
99 I suggest that any new rail lines Response 99: The project would introduce more trains to the network (not new rail lines); however
are built underground to these are expected to be electrified and less intrusive than engine powered trains. Increases in
minimise noise. noise could occur from increased pedestrian flow through the station and operational plant.
Page 40
100 I am concerned over noise Response 100: The project would introduce more trains to the network (not new rail lines);
pollution affecting local however these are expected to be electrified and less intrusive than engine powered trains.
residents if Old Oak Common Increases in noise could occur from increased pedestrian flow through the station and operational
Lane station is built. plant.
101 I suggest that the station Response 101: Noted. This aspect will be looked into as part of further design.
features nesting/breeding
facilities for local species such
as bats and swifts. [Station not
identified].
102 I am concerned about the Response 102: Increases in noise could occur from increased pedestrian flow through the station
increase in noise on Midland and operational plant.
Terrace if a station entrance
constructed there. Construction would be carried out in accordance with an agreed Construction Environment
Page 41
8. Issues raised about construction impacts
103 I am concerned about disruption for local residents during the construction phase
104 I am concerned that the construction will negatively impact on local business
105 I suggest that the construction does not take place during peak times
106 I suggest that the construction work does not take place at night
107 I suggest that the local residents are provided with a detailed impact report on
construction
108 I am concerned about road closures during the construction phase
109 I suggest that all rail construction work should be completed before the construction
of residential accommodation at the HS2/ Elizabeth line station
110 I am concerned that plans are too heavily influenced by those attempting to minimise
disruption during construction
111 I suggest that the interchange between lines/services must be covered or sheltered
from adverse weather
112 I suggest that the passenger interchange is facilitated by
113 I suggest that the station(s) are made accessible to people with mobility needs
Page 42
Table 8.1: Responses to issues Raised about Potential Construction Impacts
103 I am concerned about Response 103: More detailed construction plans developed at the next stage would support the
disruption for local residents production of a Code of Construction Practice (COCP) which would demonstrate how the project
during the construction phase. would manage the effects of construction on local residents, local businesses and the
environment.
Construction for the new stations would have to be coordinated with construction plans of both
HS2 and the OPDC Developments to reduce combined construction impacts in the area.
104 I am concerned that the Response 104: More detailed construction plans developed at the next stage would support the
construction will negatively production of a Code of Construction Practice (COCP) which would demonstrate how the project
impact on local business. would manage the effects of construction on local residents, local businesses and the
environment.
Construction for the new stations would have to be coordinated with construction plans of both
HS2 and the OPDC Developments to reduce combined construction impacts in the area.
105 I suggest that the construction Response 105: TfL would consult on work timings in a later consultation, although it is certain that
does not take place during some work would require possession of the railway at certain times to enable those parts of the
peak times. project that interface directly with the railway lines to be completed as quickly as possible.
106 I suggest that the construction Response 106: More detailed construction plans developed at the next stage would support the
work does not take place at production of a Code of Construction Practice (COCP) which would demonstrate how the project
night. would manage the effects of construction on local residents, local businesses and the
environment.
This would include consideration of how night working can be reduced if possible or if night work is
critical would determine appropriate mitigations to reduce impact of night work on the local area.
Page 43
107 I suggest that the local Response 107: More detailed construction plans developed at the next stage would support the
residents are provided with a production of a Code of Construction Practice (COCP) which would demonstrate how the project
detailed impact report on would manage the effects of construction on local residents, local businesses and the
construction. environment.
The COCP would be required to be submitted as part of the Planning Application for the works
which would be available to the public.
108 I am concerned about road Response 108: More detailed construction plans developed at the next stage would support the
closures during the production of a Code of Construction Practice (COCP) which would demonstrate how the project
construction phase. would manage the effects of construction on local residents, local businesses and the
environment.
These plans would look to reduce as much as possible disruption and/or closures to local roads as
possible to ensure local roads are only disrupted and/or closed to support critical works which can
only be delivered through such an impact. We would also work closely with the HS2/Elizabeth line
station project to minimise disruption.
109 I suggest that all rail Response 109: The HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station complex is planned to be completed in
construction work should be 2026 and TfL would like to complete both Old Oak Common Lane station and Hythe Road station
completed before the by that date.
construction of residential
accommodation at the HS2/
Elizabeth line station
Page 44
110 I am concerned that plans are Response 110: Detailed construction staging plans would look to ensure that construction works
too heavily influenced by are delivered as efficiently as possible (without compromising safety) to ensure that the overall
those attempting to minimise timescales for construction works do not drag out increasing long term disruption to the local
disruption during construction. community but also to the railway itself, which would in turn increase scheme cost. Please also
refer to Response 105.
111 I suggest a shorter timescale Response 114: Detailed construction staging plans would look to ensure that construction works
for completion. are delivered as efficiently as possible (without compromising safety) to ensure that the overall
timescales for construction works do not drag out increasing long term disruption to the local
community. However we would need to work within the constraints of when the project would
have possession of the railway to undertake the construction works. Please also refer to Response
105.
112 I suggest that the station Response 115: The final designs of the stations would be subject to further work which will be
designs should be sympathetic subject to public consultation before any construction was to commence.
to the industrial heritage of the
area.
113 I am concerned that the local Response 116: More detailed construction plans developed at the next stage would support the
pedestrian routes may be production of a Code of Construction Practice (COCP) which would demonstrate how the project
affected because of site would manage the effects of construction on local residents, local businesses and the
works. environment.
These plans would look to reduce as much as possible disruption and/or closures to local
pedestrian routes. We would work as closely as possible with the HS2/Elizabeth line station
project to ensure local pedestrian routes are only disrupted and/or closed to support critical works
which can only be delivered through such an impact.
Page 45
9. Issues raised about potential economic impacts
114 I am concerned that the residents will suffer financially as a result of the proposals
115 I suggest utilising Willesden Junction station rather than constructing two new
stations
116 I am concerned that Brexit threatens the scheme’s funding

117 I suggest that the funding should be used to upgrade existing stations and/or lines
118 I suggest that selling the air rights for all stations is included in the proposal
119 I suggest that the housing developers in the Old Oak Common Lane area contribute
towards new transport infrastructure in the area
120 I suggest that the funding should be used to upgrade existing stations and/or lines
121 I suggest that the proposals are funded by HS2 Ltd
122 I suggest that CarGiant should contribute funding for the proposals
123 I am concerned that the local residents will not receive compensation for the impacts
of the proposals
124 I am concerned over the use of Compulsory Purchase Orders for local homes
125 I am concerned that the proposals will negatively affect local businesses
126 I am concerned about an increase in insurance costs for Midland Terrace residents
127 I am concerned that about an increase in litter on Midland Terrace if the station
entrance is constructed there
Page 46
Table 9.1: Responses to issues Raised about Potential Economic impacts
114 I am concerned that the Response 114: These proposals are in the early stages and currently no residential or commercial
residents will suffer financially properties are proposed for Compulsory Purchase. However, if there is a need for any
as a result of the proposals. compensation process related to the development, this would be designed and offered at the
appropriate time.
115 I suggest utilising Willesden Response 115: This would not deliver the direct interchange between the London Overground and
Junction station rather than the HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail services that this proposal would enable. Please also refer to
constructing two new stations. Response 4.
116 I am concerned that Brexit Response 116: Funding for this scheme would be sourced as for any other transport scheme. This
threatens the scheme’s would be likely to include some developer contribution as well as potential public sector
funding. resources, subject to funding and financing available at that time.
117 I suggest that the funding Response 117: The London Overground has already delivered a substantial upgrade in the quality
should be used to upgrade of train stock, station environment and service frequency on both the West London line and North
existing stations and/or lines. London line, and this scheme would further add to the increasing connectivity of the London
Overground to the wider National Rail network and support the delivery of a major growth area in
line with the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.
118 I suggest that selling the air Response 118: This scheme would be delivered in line with TfL's commercial development
rights for all stations is priorities in the TfL Business Plan.
included in the proposal.
119 I suggest that the housing Response 119: Community Infrastructure Levy tariffs, and Section 106 funding from developers,
developers in the Old Oak which are collected by Local Authorities, are a standard means of part-funding transport schemes,
Common Lane area contribute
towards new transport
infrastructure in the area.
Page 47
120 I suggest that the funding Response 120: The HS2 station which these stations would complement and interchange with
should be used to upgrade would serve this purpose, proving high speed services to Birmingham and northwards.
existing stations and/or lines.
121 I suggest that the proposals Response 121: We are currently investigating potential funding sources for the proposed stations
are funded by HS2 Ltd. and continue to work closely with HS2 as we do this. Please also refer to Response 119.
122 I suggest that CarGiant should Response 122: We are currently investigating potential funding sources for the proposed stations
contribute funding for the and continue to work closely with CarGiant and their development partner as we do this. Please
proposals. also refer to Response 119.
123 I am concerned that the local Response 123: Please refer to Response 114.
residents will not receive
compensation for the impacts
of the proposals.
124 I am concerned over the use of Response 124: Please refer to Response 114.
Compulsory Purchase Orders
for local homes.
125 I am concerned that the Response 125: TfL would design the scheme to mitigate any effects to local businesses. Please
proposals will negatively affect also refer to Response 114.
local businesses.
126 I am concerned about an Response 126: Whether insurance premiums increase or indeed reduce is a matter for market
increase in insurance costs for forces and in the current competitive insurance market we would encourage those with concerns
Midland Terrace residents. to seek a range of quotations.
Page 48
127 I am concerned that about an Response 127: TfL would ensure that appropriate provision were made to remove litter from the
increase in litter on Midland proposed station and would work with the Local Highway Authority to provide mitigation to ensure
Terrace if the station entrance that the station did not result in an increase in litter in the local area.
is constructed there.
Page 49
10. Issues raised that were out of scope
128 The proposals must provide housing

129 I suggest that the proposals include a new stadium for Queens Park Rangers
130 The proposals must provide affordable housing

131 I suggest that the proposals also include a hospital
132 I suggest that the proposals include a new stadium for Queens Park Rangers
133 I suggest adopting Thameslink technology to allow up to 30 trains per hour to run on
Overground lines and increase frequency and capacity on the line
134 I suggest that a rail bridge is created across Euston mainline with a chord joining the
Bakerloo and Overground route
135 I suggest the creation of a cycle route through Wormwood Scrubs
136 I suggest the creation of a Cycle Superhighway to Old Oak Common Lane
Page 50
Table 10.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Out of Scope Issues
128 The proposals must provide Response 128: The proposed London Overground stations would themselves not directly deliver
housing. new housing. They would however support and enable the delivery of new housing by others and
are a key enabler of the OPDC’s plans to develop 25,500 new dwellings in the area.
129 The proposals must provide Response 129: The proposed London Overground stations would themselves not directly deliver
social housing. new housing including social housing. They would however support and enable the OPDC’s plans
to develop 25,500 new dwellings in the area. The OPDC are committed to delivering the Mayor’s
overarching target of 50% affordable housing. Please also refer to Response 128.
130 The proposals must provide Response 130: Please refer to Response 129.
affordable housing.
131 I suggest that the proposals Response 131: This is a matter for the NHS and the ODPC and is outside the scope of this
also include a hospital. scheme.
132 I suggest that the proposals Response 132: This is a commercial matter for Queens Park Rangers and is outside the scope of
include a new stadium for this scheme.
Queens Park Rangers.
133 I suggest adopting Thameslink Response 133: Such a service level is not currently proposed and is outside the scope of this
technology to allow up to 30 project. The proposed stations could potentially serve a greater frequency of service if this were to
trains per hour to run on be introduced on the North and West London lines respectively although this could be dependent
Overground lines and increase of signalling and/or other improvements.
frequency and capacity on the
line.
Page 51
Table 10.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Out of Scope Issues
134 I suggest that a rail bridge is Response 134: Such a rail bridge at this location is outside the scope of this scheme. Please also
created across Euston refer to Response 165.
mainline with a chord joining
the Bakerloo and Overground
route.
135 I suggest the creation of a Response 135: This proposal falls outside the objectives of this scheme. There are no current
cycle route through proposals for a Cycle Superhighway in this area.
Wormwood Scrubs.
136 I suggest the creation of a Response 136: This proposal falls outside the objectives of this scheme. There are no current
Cycle Superhighway to Old proposals for a Cycle Superhighway in this area. Please refer to Response 135.
Oak Common Lane.
Page 52
11. Issues raised about potential local road impacts
137 I am concerned that the shortcomings in passenger interchange in the proposals will
push demand from rail onto road
138 I am concerned that the proposals will cause increases in road journey times locally
139 I am concerned that the proposals will increase congestion at the junction of Wood
Lane and Du Cane Road
140 I suggest providing improved road connections for north bound traffic to remove
bottlenecks
141 I suggest that additional road space is provided to accommodate any increase in
vehicle traffic due to the proposals
142 I am concerned about road closures as a result of the proposals
Page 53
Table 11.1: Responses to issues Raised about Potential Local Road Impacts
137 I am concerned that the Response 137: The provision of two new stations at Old Oak is expected generate more trips by
shortcomings in passenger public transport and reduce the number for trips made by road. This is because the stations would
interchange in the proposals provide quicker public transport journeys than would otherwise exist. This likely impact is
will push demand from rail consistent with what has been observed following the delivery of other public transport schemes.
onto road. Please also refer to Response 38.
138 I am concerned that the Response 138: The provision of two new stations is expected to reduce the number of trips made
proposals will cause increases by road and thus would not be expected to increase road journey times. As part of any application
in road journey times locally. for permission to build and operate the scheme, TfL would produce a Transport Assessment that
will assess the impacts on the highway network arising from the proposal. Please also refer to
Response 137.
139 I am concerned that the Response 139: The provision of two new stations is not expected to increase road congestion.
proposals will increase Instead it is likely to encourage more trips to be made by public transport which would result in
congestion at the junction of less trips being made by road. Please also refer to Response 138.
Wood Lane and Du Cane
Road.
140 I suggest providing improved Response 140: This proposal falls outside the objectives of this scheme. There are no current
road connections for north proposals for changes to connections for northbound traffic.
bound traffic to remove
bottlenecks.
Page 54
Table 11.1: Responses to issues Raised about Potential Local Road Impacts
141 I suggest that additional road Response 141: The provision of two new stations is not expected to increase vehicle traffic on the
space is provided to local road network. Instead it is likely to encourage more trips to be made by public transport
accommodate any increase in which would result in less trips being made by road. Therefore we do not propose to provide any
vehicle traffic due to the additional road space for vehicle traffic. During construction, some additional vehicle movements
proposals. will be required. Such necessary movements will be catered for in the construction plan for the
stations and this will form part of any TWAO application documents. Please also refer to Response
138.
142 I am concerned about road Response 142: The proposed scheme is not expected to result in any permanent road closures.
closures as a result of the Any closures required during construction would be a short as reasonably practicable and would be
proposals. subject to a future public consultation. As part of any application for permission to build and
operate the scheme, TfL would produce a Transport Assessment that would assess the impacts
on the highway network arising from the proposal including any temporary road closures during
construction. We would also work closely with the HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station project
to minimise disruption.
Page 55
12. Issues raised about impacts on the current transport network
143 I am concerned that the proposals do not adequately enhance connectivity locally
144 I am concerned that the proposals are aimed at meeting local transport needs rather
than wider London transport goals
145 I am concerned that the construction of the new stations will increase journey times
on existing National Rail lines
146 I am concerned that the existing local transport network will not be able to cope with
the proposals
147 I suggest that the external station realm improvements are planned early to ensure Old
Oak’s position as an orbital interchange
148 I suggest that the proposals take a more long term approach to planning and
forecasting for the next 50 to 100 years
149 I suggest that the local and national transport bodies and organisations co-operate
fully to achieve improved connectivity
150 I suggest that the proposed new rail lines should remove the need for trains to change
tracks and so reduce journey times
151 I suggest that the capacity of the Overground trains is increased to meet growth in
passenger demand due to the new stations
152 I am concerned that the proposed stations do not adequately address the gap in
London Overground provision between Old Oak Common Lane and Shepherds Bush
153 I am concerned over the impact of these proposals to freight services
Page 56
Table 12.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Impacts on the Current Transport Network
143 I am concerned that the Response 143: The proposed new stations would provide new connections for local residents to
proposals do not adequately north and east London as well as to Richmond from Old Oak Common Lane station and Clapham
enhance connectivity locally. Junction and Shepherds Bush from Hythe Road station. The potential bridge between Victoria
Road and Old Oak Common Lane would also provide a brand new local link between the Park
Royal and Old Oak areas. In addition, the OPDC are developing plans for Old Oak that would
create a new centre for West London including many new connections across the area including
links to, and between the two potential new Overground stations and the planned HS2/Elizabeth
line/National Rail station. Please also refer to Response 38.
144 I am concerned that the Response 144: This scheme meets both local transport goals and London-wide transport goals,
proposals are aimed at and is supported by the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (2018) and draft London Plan (2017), as well as
meeting local transport needs the Old Oak & Park Royal Local Plan. All these plans take a long term perspective to the transport
rather than wider London needs of Greater London, and Old Oak, respectively.
transport goals.
145 I am concerned that the Response 145: There would be some impact on London Overground services on the North and
construction of the new West London lines due to the extra stop at each of the new stations respectively. However our
stations will increase journey assessments show that any delay is marginal and that the benefits to passengers outweigh any
times on existing National Rail negative effects caused by the extra journey times
lines.
146 I am concerned that the Response 146: TfL/ODPC has carried out a strategic transport study as part of the work developing
existing local transport proposals for the regeneration of the Old Oak area. This study identified a range of new and
network will not be able to enhanced transport infrastructure likely to be needed to support the proposals, including new and
cope with the proposals. upgraded rail stations to serve the area.
Page 57
147 I suggest that the external Response 147: The station would be designed to best serve both passengers and the local
station realm improvements community in both function and design. The illustrations in the consultation are an early outline
are planned early to ensure indication as to how the stations might look, and further consultation would be carried out as
Old Oak’s position as an design progresses. Further design work would take place as part of the next stage of work. This
orbital interchange. would recognise the importance of the station as an interchange and would be subject to further
public consultation. The design taken forward to planning permission would be subject to a full
Environmental Impact Assessment which would include a Design and Access Statement. Please
148 I suggest that the proposals Response 148: The proposed stations have been designed to accommodate future forecast
take a more long term passenger demand, including all movements to and from the station from both the planned Old
approach to planning and Oak development and the future HS2/Elizabeth line/National rail station. Please also refer to
forecasting for the next 50 to Response 144.
100 years.
149 I suggest that the local and Response 149: TfL and all its partners are committed to working together to deliver significantly
national transport bodies and improved transport connectivity to and within the area.
organisations co-operate fully
to achieve improved
connectivity.
150 I suggest that the proposed Response 150: The proposed stations are designed to improve connectivity and reduce journey
new rail lines should remove times for local residents and businesses. The provision of two stations on existing lines would
the need for trains to change provide significant new journey opportunities for people travelling to and from the local area. No
tracks and so reduce journey new lines are planned, although some track layout changes are required from current routes.
times.
Page 58
151 I suggest that the capacity of Response 151: TfL constantly monitors demand across our network and seeks to balance demand
the Overground trains is and capacity across all services. We would only introduce the potential new stations if we were
increased to meet growth in comfortable that they could be accommodated, within the capacity of the network. The Mayor’s
passenger demand due to the Transport Strategy (2018) provides more information on the capacity enhancements that TfL plans
new stations. to implement on the transport network. Please also refer to Response 55.
152 I am concerned that the Response 152: The two new proposed stations are intended to serve the Old Oak area; including
proposed stations do not providing new links to the planned HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station. From Hythe Road
adequately address the gap in station it would provide a direct link between Old Oak and Shepherds Bush. The provision on any
London Overground provision additional stations between these two locations is beyond the scope of this project. Please also
between Old Oak Common refer to Response 38 and Response 144.
Lane and Shepherds Bush.
153 I am concerned over the Response 153: Any impacts on freight services or operators would be subject to the Network
impact of these proposals to Change process operated by Network Rail and overseen by the Office of Rail and Road. This is a
freight services. regulatory process that would be required to be undertaken should studies show that this impact
is demonstrated.
Page 59
13. Issues raised about suggested connections
154 I suggest that the interchange between lines/services must be covered or sheltered
from adverse weather
155 I suggest that the passenger interchange is facilitated by travelators
156 I suggest that the station(s) are made accessible to people with mobility needs
157 I suggest that the proposals should provide a connection to the Central line
158 I suggest that the proposals should provide a connection to the Underground
159 I suggest that Willesden Junction station is redeveloped
160 I suggest the creation of an Overground Station, Westway Circus, at the Westway
161 I suggest a connection between the proposed stations and the Hounslow Loop
162 I suggest implementing a twin track alignment from Northolt to Old Oak Common
Lane station to allow access for Chiltern Railways services
163 I suggest the creation of a new east facing bay at Acton Main Line station to increase
service capacity on the future Dudding Hill line
164 I suggest that all five of the stations are constructed on top of each other (eg High
Level, Low Level, Underground)
165 I suggest that the proposals should provide a connection to the Bakerloo line
166 I suggest that the access to airports is improved in general
167 I suggest that the proposals include a bus route from Acton Central
168 I suggest constructing a further London Overground station at Latimer Road
169 I suggest constructing a station at the former Eurostar depot on North Pole Road
170 I suggest revitalising the Dudding Hill line to provide even more possibilities for
connections in Old Oak Common
171 I suggest that the section of rail between the Acton Wells junctions should feature four
tracks to increase service capacity and remove bottlenecks
172 I am concerned that the Old Oak Common Lane and Hythe Road stations are too close
together; their locations should be reconsidered
173 I suggest that an alternative station at Mitre Bridge would provide better interchange
with the HS2/Elizabeth line than the current proposals
Page 60
174 I suggest running services from Clapham Junction to Old Oak Common Lane, via Hythe
Road
175 I suggest that London Overground services extend beyond West Ealing to Willesden
Junction
176 I suggest that that an accessible walking route to Park Royal station would improve
access to Old Oak Common Lane from north west London
177 I suggest creating a new branch of the North London Line to create an alternative
station west of the proposed Hythe Road site
178 I suggest creating an additional station on the West London Line at Imperial College
West Campus on Latimer Road
179 I suggest that the proposed stations are merged to provide one station
180 I suggest that the proposed stations are merged to provide one station
181 I suggest increasing Overground service frequency from Willesden Junction to Bromley
South and Orpington via the North London line and West London line
Page 61
Table 13.1: Responses to Issues Raised about Suggested Connections
154 I suggest that the interchange Response 154: The design of both the stations includes shelter from adverse or inclement
between lines/services must weather.
be covered or sheltered from
adverse weather.
155 I suggest that the passenger Response 155: There are no proposals for travelators in the proposed scheme. To provide
interchange is facilitated by travelators would require additional land take and would add significant cost to the scheme.
travelators.
156 I suggest that the station(s) are Response 156: TfL would comply with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 and other legal
made accessible to people requirements in design and construction of the stations.
with mobility needs.
157 I suggest that the proposals Response 157: The location of the proposed stations is intended to best serve both the planned
should provide a connection HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station and the existing and planned communities at Old Oak.
to the Central line. Connections to the Central line would be available via Shepherd Bush when travelling from Hythe
Road station or via a short walk along Victoria Road if travelling from Old Oak Common Lane
station. Please also refer to Response 18.
158 I suggest that the proposals Response 158: Direct connections to London Underground services would be provided for
should provide a connection passengers using both stations, including at Willesden Junction (Bakerloo line), Shepherds Bush
to the Underground. (Central line), West Brompton, Gunnersbury (both District line) and Highbury & Islington (Victoria
line). Please also refer to Response 18.
159 I suggest that Willesden Response 159: TfL is working with the OPDC, Network Rail and LB Brent to identify potential
Junction station is improvements to Willesden Junction station.
redeveloped.
Page 62
160 I suggest the creation of an Response 160: This would be an additional station between a new Hythe Road station and the
Overground Station, Westway existing London Overground station at Shepherds Bush and is not part of the scope of this work.
Circus, at the Westway. Please also refer to Response 168.
161 I suggest a connection Response 161: Such a proposal is not part of the scope of this project, which is focussed on the
between the proposed provision of two new London Overground stations at Old Oak only. Please refer to Response 1.
stations and the Hounslow
Loop.
162 I suggest implementing a twin Response 162: This is outside scope of this scheme and would not deliver scheme objectives.
track alignment from Northolt Cost and planning issues are likely to make it infeasible to implement. Please also refer to
to Old Oak Common Lane Response 56.
station to allow access for
Chiltern Railways services. HS2 services are planned to also run towards Birmingham on the new HS2 line from 2026 with
direct access to these services from Old Oak.
163 I suggest the creation of a new Response 163: Such a proposal is not part of the scope of this project, which is focussed on the
east facing bay at Acton Main provision of two new London Overground stations at Old Oak only. Please also refer to Response
Line station to increase service 1.
capacity on the future Dudding
Hill line.
164 I suggest that all five of the Response 164: The locations of the existing rail lines in relation to each other make this infeasible
stations are constructed on in cost and engineering terms.
top of each other (eg High
Level, Low Level,
Underground).
Page 63
165 I suggest that the proposals Response 165: There is existing connectivity via Willesden Junction station which is one station
should provide a connection away from either of the two proposed stations. Please also refer to Response 158.
to the Bakerloo line.
166 I suggest that the access to Response 166: This is beyond the scope of this scheme however there is connectivity provided via
airports is improved in general. connections to exiting networks. For this scheme, the connections for Old Oak residents to
Heathrow Airport in particular, but also all the other key London airports would be substantially
improved.
167 I suggest that the proposals Response 167: This proposal is beyond the scope of this scheme which is for the provision of two
include a bus route from London Overground stations linked to the forthcoming HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station at
Acton Central station. Old Oak.
168 I suggest constructing a further Response 168: This would be an additional station between a new Hythe Road station and the
London Overground station at existing London Overground station at Shepherds Bush, and the existing provision of Circle line and
Latimer Road. Hammersmith and City line services mean the location is already well served.
169 I suggest constructing a station Response 169: The existing proposal is located very close to the North Pole depot which has
at the former Eurostar depot already been subject to upgrading to service the new Intercity Express trains for the Great Western
on North Pole Road. Main line.
Page 64
170 I suggest revitalising the Response 170: Separate proposals for a West London Orbital Line between Hounslow and Hendon
Dudding Hill line to provide and/or West Hampstead have been outlined in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (2018). Such a
even more possibilities for service would utilise the current freight only, Dudding Hill line that joins the North London line in
connections in Old Oak the Old Oak Common Lane area and could include a station at this location. This proposal is
Common Lane station. however at a very early stage of development and as such, there is no certainty that it will
progress. For this reason a station on the Dudding Hill line does not form part of the current
proposals for Old Oak Common Lane station, however the future provision of additional platforms
on the Dudding Hill line is not precluded by the existing designs of the station footbridge. Please
171 I suggest that the section of Response 171: This is beyond the scope of the project. Old Oak Common Lane station has been
rail between the Acton Wells designed to serve existing and planned service frequencies on the North London line, all of which
junctions should feature four can be accommodated through the existing junction at Acton Wells. Please also refer to Response
tracks to increase service 1.
capacity and remove
bottlenecks.
172 I am concerned that the Old Response 172: Operationally there is no issue with the location of the proposed stations relative
Oak Common Lane and Hythe to one another. If built, the stations would be no closer together than many other stations on the
Road stations are too close London Overground network, and as they different London Overground lines, both would provide
together; their locations an important, and independent function in improving connectivity to and from the Old Oak area.
should be reconsidered.
173 I suggest that an alternative Response 173: This proposal would mean that North London line services towards Richmond
station at Mitre Bridge would could not be served by the proposed scheme.
provide better interchange
with the HS2/Elizabeth line
than the current proposals.
Page 65
174 I suggest running services from Response 174: The proposed Hythe Road station would not have a direct rail link to the planned
Clapham Junction to Old Oak HS2/Elizabeth line/National Rail station at Old Oak. It is however located within walking distance of
Common Lane, via Hythe that station and TfL and the OPDC are also in the process of designing a Bus Strategy for the area
Road. which will interlink to the project. Please also refer to Response 57.
175 I suggest that London Response 175: There is no current London Overground service to West Ealing station and no plans
Overground services extend to introduce any such services at this time.
beyond West Ealing to
Willesden Junction.
176 I suggest that that an Response 176: This is outside the scope of this scheme but the OPDC local plan contains
accessible walking route to proposals to improve the area.
Park Royal station would
improve access to Old Oak
Common Lane from north
west London.
177 I suggest creating a new branch Response 177: This is outside scope of this scheme as it would not deliver the scheme objectives.
of the North London Line to Cost and planning issues would likely make it infeasible, whereas the proposed scheme makes the
create an alternative station best use of the existing railways infrastructure.
west of the proposed Hythe
Road site.
178 I suggest creating an additional Response 178: please refer to Response 168.
station on the West London
Line at Imperial College West
Campus on Latimer Road.
Page 66
179 I suggest that the proposed Response 179: This was assessed at a previous stage and ruled out. More information can be
stations are merged to provide found in the responses to issues raised to the 2014 consultation. Please also refer to Response
one station. 164.
180 I suggest that rerouting Response 180: This was assessed at a previous stage and ruled out. More information can be
London Overground lines found in the responses to issues raised to the 2014 consultation. Please also refer to Response
directly to the HS2/Elizabeth 164.
line station at Old Oak
Common.
181 I suggest increasing Response 181: There is no current direct service via this route and no plans to introduce one.
Overground service frequency
from Willesden Junction to Services to Bromley South and Orpington are currently subject to the Southeastern franchise rather
Bromley South and Orpington than London Overground.
via the North London line and
West London line.
Page 67
14. Next steps
14.1. Subject to funding being secured and further public consultation we would seek
permission to build and operate the proposals via a Transport and Works Act order
(TWAO).
14.2. Funding remains a significant constraint in delivering these proposals. We are

currently seeking to establish a package of funding that could enable the stations to
be delivered by 2026 alongside the new HS2 and Elizabeth line station.
Page 68
Appendix 1: Summary of the proposals for Hythe Road station
A1.1. Hythe Road station would be situated on the West London line about 700 metres
from the Old Oak Common station and in one of the largest development sites
within the OPDC area. This development site is owned by the company Car Giant and
known as Old Oak Park. Car Giant, supported by the property development company
London and Regional, is independently proposing a large-scale redevelopment of its
land.
Figure A.1-1: Legible London view of the potential Hythe Road station below
A1.2. The following options were considered:

i 1A - a new London Overground station on the existing railway embankment,
including embankment widening where required
ii 1B - a new station and railway viaduct to the north of the existing embankment.
This option would mean the removal of the existing embankment
iii 1C - a new station and railway viaduct to the south of the existing embankment.
This option would also mean the removal of the embankment
A1.3. Option 1B is the preferred option as it provides greater opportunity for regeneration
and the creation of new spaces that support the wider development. In addition, this
option reduces the severance caused by the embankment, making it easier for people
to move around the area.
Page 69
Figure A.1-2: Illustrative visualisation of Hythe Road station (1)
Page 70
Page 71
Appendix 2: Summary of the proposals for Old Oak Common Lane station
A2.1. Old Oak Common Lane station would be situated about 350 metres to the west of
the HS2 and Elizabeth line station, sitting on the North London line between Old Oak
Common Lane and Midland Terrace. This station would provide the most convenient
interchange between London Overground, HS2, the Elizabeth line and National Rail
services. The location of this station is constrained by other railway lines, roads and
residential properties.
A2.2. To the west of Old Oak Common Lane station, there is an aspiration to provide a
pedestrian and cycle link, connecting Old Oak Common Lane and Victoria Road. This
link would make it easier for people to move around the area as currently the
patchwork of railway lines act as a barrier. While a pedestrian / cycle link crossing the
railway lines is not essential for the new station, we have included possible provision
for such a link in each option as we believe it would be important for opening up the
wider area.
Figure A.2-1: Legible London view of the potential Old Oak Common Lane station
A2.3. The following options were considered:

i 2A - a new station with a sub-surface ticket hall and concourse. This option
would include potential for an underpass between Old Oak Common Lane and
Victoria Road
ii 2B - a new station with an elevated ticket hall and concourse. This option would
include potential for a bridge, linking pedestrians and cyclists between Old Oak
Common Lane and Victoria Road
Page 72
A2.4. Option 2B is the preferred option as it reduces the level of disruption to the railway
during construction and provides better value for money.
Figure A.2-2: Illustrative visualisation of Old Oak Common Lane station (1)
Page 73
Page 74
Appendix 3: Summary of the proposals for Victoria Road bridge
A3.1. Although the provision of an overpass to Victoria Road is not a requirement of the
potential station, the design would allow for this to be provided, either at the same
time as the station or at a later date. The decision to proceed with such a link is not
confirmed and would be subject to further review and discussion with local
stakeholders including residents, landowners and OPDC.
Figure A.3-1: An illustrative image of Old Oak Common Lane station and possible overpass
to Victoria Road
Page 75

2018 12 19 TFL OOC Stations Potential London Overground Stations Old Oak Response To Issues Raised

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

2018 12 19 TFL OOC Stations Potential London Overground Stations Old Oak Response To Issues Raised

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Potential London Overground Stations

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ 3

Figure 1-1: Potential locations of new London Overground stations ...................................... 7

Figure 1-1: Potential locations of new London Overground stations

Ref Main issues raised

13 I suggest that the station is able to accommodate potential Basingstoke to Stansted

25 I am concerned that the station design is not aesthetically pleasing

29 I am concerned about an increase in crime on Midland Terrace if a station entrance is

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised

32 I am concerned about the personal security of bridge users

34 I am concerned over structural integrity of the potential bridge

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised

52 I am concerned that the proposals will destroy existing community

61 I suggest an alternative station location at Scrubs Lane to accommodate the Southern

62 I suggest an alternative station location at the embankment on Scrubs Lane

76 I oppose construction of a viaduct

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

62 I suggest an alternative station Response 62: Please refer to Response 61.

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised

79 I am concerned that local residents have not been adequately consulted

83 I suggest that TfL provides alternative options for formative consultation

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised

89 I am concerned over the impact of proposals on trees

93 I suggest that existing environmental problems need to be addressed

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

98 I support the proposals due to Response 98: Noted.

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised

116 I am concerned that Brexit threatens the scheme’s funding

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised

128 The proposals must provide housing

130 The proposals must provide affordable housing

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised

Ref Main issues raised TfL response

Ref Main issues raised TfL response