Consultation on possible changes to route
295 in Wandsworth
Summary of responses
1 Consultation on possible changes to 295 bus service in
Wandsworth
Summary of responses
Contents
Section
Appendices
1 Introduction
Page
3
2 The consultation
4
3 Overview summary of responses and responses
from statutory bodies and other stakeholders
5-7
4 Responses from members of the public
8-9
Copy of consultation letter and map
11-13
List of stakeholders consulted
14-15
2 1.
Introduction
Transport for London (TfL) consulted stakeholders on the initial principle of changing
route 295 in Wandsworth between 15 February and 19 March 2010. This report
explains the background to the scheme, the consultation and summarises the
responses. TfL was seeking preliminary stakeholder views on a possible change to
the 295 so that it would go along Trinity Road and St Johns Hill between
Wandsworth roundabout and Clapham Junction, instead of York Road and Plough
Road (see copy of consultation letter and map in appendices).
About the scheme
This possible change to route 295 was developed in response to Trinity Road
resident representatives request for a direct cross-river bus service from Trinity Road
to Fulham. At the moment, people making this journey by bus have to change at
Clapham Junction.
A possible change to route 295 could make the Trinity Road - Fulham journey easier.
However, it would mean the loss of the 295 on York and Plough Roads. Stakeholder
feedback would therefore inform a decision as to whether to develop the idea into a
proposal for public consultation.
3 2.
The Consultation
TfL was keen to understand the opinions of Trinity Road, York and Plough Road bus
user representatives as they would be most affected by the change. TfL also
needed to understand the possibility of putting a new bus stop on Woodwell Street,
which would be required for interchange between the 219 and 295 towards Fulham.
General comment and opinions were sought, rather than specific consultation
questions as the scheme was in early stages of development. Further consultation
with stakeholders and the public would be necessary if the scheme is amended
and/or taken forward after this initial consideration.
2.1
Consultation objectives
The objectives of the consultation were:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
2.2
To give stakeholders enough information about the scheme to allow them to
give informed responses to the principle of a change to route 295
Gauge level of support for a change to route 295 – whether it would improve
the cross river journey for potential service users
Understand concerns and objections, especially about effects on Plough and
York Roads
Identify issues not already thought of and allow stakeholders to input if the
scheme develops
Work with the council and police to gain their assistance in agreeing any
associated infrastructure change on the public highway
Who we consulted
A list of stakeholders consulted is provided in the appendix. We consulted the
affected councils, police, London Travelwatch and other local stakeholders who may
have an interest in route 295 in the Wandsworth area. This included Wandsworth
Council Public Transport Liaison Group who considered the consultation at their 15
March 2010 meeting and Wandsworth Mobility Forum, who considered the possible
change at their 10 February 2010 meeting.
2.3 Consultation material and distribution
A letter and map was sent to stakeholders and uploaded to TfL’s website, to allow
stakeholders to send the consultation to affected constituents or other community
members. An email response facility was provided and people could reply face to
face, at liaison meetings in writing, by email or by telephone.
4 3.
Overview summary of responses
We received 8 stakeholder responses and 42 replies from individuals. Public
respondents are mostly those who received a notification from a stakeholder, or saw
the consultation on the TfL website.
The majority of public responses were from Trinity Road area residents, not those
affected in Plough or York Roads, who may not have been aware of the consultation.
Further consultation with the wider public would therefore be necessary if the
scheme is amended and/or taken forward after this initial consideration.
Stakeholders and members of the public felt that while the 295 change could make
the journey easier, it would not fully meet the request. Some ways to further develop
the idea were suggested in the consultation. The main suggestion was to include
changes to the 219 so that it would go along St John’s Hill to allow interchange
between the 295 and 219 on St Johns Hill.
Stakeholder responses are summarised in section 3.1-3.8 and public responses are
summarised in section 4.
Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders
A summary of stakeholder responses is below:
3.1
London Borough of Wandsworth
London Borough of Wandsworth considered the consultation at their Passenger
Transport Liaison Group on 15 March 2010. They are torn between supporting a
change to the 295 in the absence of a new economically viable service, while not
disguising the potential disadvantages or disappointment by the limitations of this
option. They suggest if the 295 scheme went ahead, the 219 should also go along St
John’s Hill to further improve interchange between the 295 and 219.This would mean
another bus service would have to go along Battersea Rise to replace the 219. The
Council mention concerns about the loss of the 295 from York and Plough Road
where there are new developments. They also suggest an extension of the 255 from
Streatham to Trinity Road may be an alternative.
3.2
Richard Tracey JP AM
Richard Tracey urged that this change happens. He cited the long running campaign
by Trinity Road residents and mentioned the various new developments just off
Trinity Road, as well as potential benefits to residents north of the Bridge, on and
adjacent to Wandsworth Bridge Road and Parsons Green. Mr Tracey believes it will
serve a very great need.
5 In a similar vein to Wandsworth Council, Mr Tracey suggested that it might make
sense to route the 219 bus to and from Clapham Junction along St John's Hill, rather
than along Wandsworth Common Northside and Battersea Rise. This would allow
passengers who are changing buses to walk simply across St John's Hill between
the Marcilly Road stops rather than having to walk along Marcilly Road to access
stops.
3.3
Toastrack Residents Association
Toastrack Residents Association represents around 150 dwellings in Dorlcote,
Henderson, Nicosia, Patten, Routh and Baskerville Roads off Trinity Road, SW18.
They consulted their residents and the reaction is one of disappointment that they
would still not have direct access by bus along Trinity Rd across Wandsworth Bridge
to Fulham.
They felt that if implemented, the 295 change would not satisfy the true demand for a
direct route across the river. Many people would not want to change from the 219 to
the 295 (particularly in the rain and the dark) at the top of the underpass, or walk
between two bus stops on their return southbound journey.
Some residents were prepared to accept the TfL proposal on the grounds that it was
the only one on offer and that the campaign for a proper route would continue.
Others thought that they should reject the proposal as:
(a) it would not be enough to silence continued demands for a direct route TootingFulham route
(b) is a poor second best to what everyone wants and
(c) if implemented, would have the effect of putting off a direct route even further into
the future.
In these circumstances they did not support the TfL proposals.
3.4
Battersea Society
The Battersea Society is opposed to the change due to the possible effects on the
Plough and York Road population of bus users. They mention planning applications
for developments in this area which may mean more demand for bus services and
do not believe the C3 is an adequate replacement for these roads that are currently
served by both services. They believe the service on route C3 can be poor.
6 3.5
London TravelWatch
London TravelWatch did not express an opinion on the possible change but asked that
if a decision is made to go ahead with the change, that it is publicised well in advance
of and that targeted e-mails to Oyster card holders take place.
If the proposals go ahead they would like to see that the stopping arrangements
would be thoroughly explained to passengers before implementation.
3.6
Bollingbroke League of Friends
The Bolingbroke league of Friends and charity identified the possible change to the
295 to be a reasonable compromise to the request some people have made for a
new direct bus route from Trinity Road to Fulham. They could see no objections, as
there are other routes serving Plough Road & York Road. They are more interested
in the 219 and do not want to see the 219 route lost or diverted.
3.7
Metropolitan Police traffic management unit
The Metropolitan Police traffic management unit (Wandsworth) had no objection to
the possible change to the 295 as long as it was on the basis of stopping
arrangements described in the consultation.
3.8
Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea
As the proposed change to the 295 does not directly affect the route in the Royal
Borough Kensington & Chelsea, they do not have any comments about the actual rerouting. However, the Council would like reassurance that the proposed change will
not negatively impact the reliability of the route.
7 4. Public responses
There were 42 public responses from individuals who were aware of the consultation
through stakeholder representatives, or through the TfL website. As no specific
questions were asked in the consultation, the responses have been analysed by
whether they are in general acceptance or opposition to the possible scheme, and by
the key issues raised.
All public responses came by email. In their email response, some respondents
made more than one comment or gave more than one reason for their opinion, so
the numbers of reasons for opinion do not tie in directly with the overall number of
respondents.
Acceptance of the possible scheme
24 out of 42 respondents generally accept a change to the 295 as a possible
improvement, and did not specifically oppose it. However, this is mainly reluctant
acceptance from people who still think TfL should provide a direct cross river bus
link.
Only 17 respondents specifically made some sort of commitment to saying they
would like to see the 295 change go ahead and these respondents form part of a
group of 22 people who chose to say they accepted it as “better than nothing”, a
“compromise” or an “alternative” to the their ideal direct route.
2 respondents were ambiguous about whether they accepted the scheme, preferring
to make general comments, but they did not specifically oppose it. Of those who
gave further reasons for their opinion, the main things that held people back from
wholly supporting the change were feeling it just wasn’t really the right solution (8),
concerns about changing buses (7), the 219 being infrequent/unreliable (4). Two key
alternative suggestions were made by this group. These were:
• to run the 219 along St John’s Hill, as well as the 295, to improve interchange
(some Stakeholders also suggested this)
• to run the 295 along Windmill Road (this would allow the 295 to serve St
John’s Road and serve existing stops on Trinity Road rather than needing a
new stop on Woodwell Street).
These alternative routeings were both suggested with a view to improving
interchange compared to the possible scheme TfL suggested.
8 Opposition to the possible scheme
18 out of 42 respondents would not accept the scheme, because they felt it wouldn’t
work, or wasn’t the right solution (15), because they were opposed to changing
buses (11), because the 219 is too infrequent or unreliable (7), or because it would
be undesirable for bus users on York and Plough Roads (4). One alternative
suggestion was to alter the 28 instead of the 295 so that the 28 went along East Hill
and Trinity Road instead of Old York Road.
9 Appendices
Copy of consultation letter & map
List of stakeholders consulted
10 11 12 13 Appendix B – List of stakeholders consulted
Elected Members
Greg Hands MP
Murad Qureshi AM
Justine Greening MP
Nicky Gavron AM
Karen Buck MP
Richard Barnbrook AM
Malcolm Rifkind MP
Richard Tracey AM
Martin Linton MP
Victoria Borwick AM
Sadiq Khan MP
Murad Qureshi AM
Andrew Boff AM
Councillor V Graham
Caroline Pidgeon
Councillor P McCausland
Darren Johnson AM
Councillor S Thom
Dee Doocey AM
Councillor M Davies
Gareth Bacon AM
Councillor J Hallmark
Jenny Jones AM
Councillor T Strickland
Kit Malthouse AM
Councillor T Belton
Mike Tuffrey AM
Councillor L Cooper
Councillor M Johnson
Councillor H Pugh
Councillor M Heaster
Councillor K Tracey
Councillor L Allan
Councillor J Nickels
Councillor P Reeve
Local Authorities
Police & Health Authorities
London Borough Wandsworth
London Borough Hammersmith &
Fulham
Royal Borough of Kensington &
Chelsea
Metropolitan Police Service
NHS London SHA
Kensington & Chelsea Primary
Care Trust
14 Other Stakeholders
London Councils
London TravelWatch
Action Disability Hammersmith & Fulham
Lots Road Action Group
LINK Networks:
• Hammersmith & Fulham
• Kensington & Chelsea
• Wandsworth
Westbourne Neighbourhood Association
London Cycling Campaign (Kensington &
Chelsea)
Hammersmith & Fulham Action on Disability
St Helens Residents Association (Ladbroke
Grove area)
The Battersea Society
Wandsworth Access Association
Organisation of blind Afro Caribbeans
Battersea Central Methodist Mission
Battersea Chapel (Baptist)
Borough Residents' Forum (Wandsworth)
Congregational Union of Ethnic Churches
Gargoyle Wharf Community Action Group
Holgate Avenue Community Association
Imani Project
Molasses House Management Co. Ltd
Plantation Wharf Association
Louvaine Area Residents' Association
Riverside Plaza Residents' Association
Totteridge House Co-operative Ltd
Trinity Road area representatives
Wandsworth Pensioners Forum
York Gardens Community Association
15