Consultation on proposed extension to bus route 315 · 2016. 3. 11. · Route 315 Consultation Report 6 2 The consultation This consultation was designed to enable us to understand

Route 315 Consultation Report 1

Consultation on proposed extension to bus route 315

Consultation Report March 2016



Consultation on proposed extension to bus route 315

Consultation Report March 2016


Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 5

2 The consultation ..................................................................................................... 6

3 Responses from members of the public ................................................................. 8

4 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders .................................... 15

5 Summary and conclusions ................................................................................... 19

Appendix A – Consultation materials .......................................................................... 20

Appendix B – Distribution area of the consultation leaflet ........................................... 31

Appendix C – List of stakeholders consulted .............................................................. 32


1 Introduction

We consulted stakeholders and the public about a proposal to permanently extend route 315 from the West Norwood area to Peabody Hill, in order to provide a bus service for the Peabody Hill estate and make additional links between West Norwood and West Dulwich. The consultation ran for over ten weeks from 22 June to 3 September 2015.

The proposal follows stakeholder and customer feedback about the lack of any bus service at Peabody Hill, a Peabody Trust estate of about 250 homes at the top of a hill about 600m from Tulse Hill station. The estate consists of two roads, Peabody Hill and Trust Walk. For this report, ‘Peabody Hill’ is used to describe the entire estate unless stated otherwise. Peabody Hill is separated from Thurlow Park Road (the A205 South Circular Road) by a steep hill, an area known as the ‘Birkbeck triangle’.

The proposal would mean that the route would no longer pass close to West Norwood station and shops on Knights Hill. The extended route would pass along Robson Road that has a single bus service at present, and Park Hall Road where buses are currently banned. The route would use Croxted Road and Thurlow Park Road, both already served by buses, then climb Thurlow Hill (part of the Birkbeck triangle) to Peabody Hill. The route would either turn at the start of Peabody HIll or run through the estate to go down Birkbeck Hill to Thurlow Park Road, and follow the same route to West Norwood.

The maps in Appendix A show the proposed route.

A meeting, organised by local councillors, was held at Peabody Hill in March 2015. TfL only agreed the 315 proposal on 11 March 2015 and therefore did not attend. Opposition to the bus service proposal was expressed forcibly by both Peabody Hill and Birkbeck triangle residents. Councillors and residents wrote to us after this meeting to discuss the proposals.

The route would continue to be served by a bus every 20 minutes in each direction for most of the day, with a bus every 30 minutes in the evenings and on Sundays.

This report describes the consultation process and summarises the responses we received.


2 The consultation

This consultation was designed to enable us to understand local opinion about the proposed changes to route 315. The consultation was planned to run for seven weeks from 22 June to 10 August 2015. After requests from residents, this was extended to 3 September 2015, a total of over ten weeks.

The potential outcomes of the consultation are:

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

We modify the scheme in response to issues raised in consultation, which may involve further consultation

We abandon the scheme as a result of issues raised in the consultation.

2.1 Consultation objectives The objectives of the consultation were:

To give stakeholders and the public easily-understandable information about the proposals and allow them to respond

To understand the level of support or opposition for the change

To understand any issues that might affect the proposal of which we were not previously aware

To understand concerns and objections

To allow respondents to make suggestions.

2.2 Who we consulted The public consultation intended to seek the views of people who live near to the existing and proposed route, current users of the service and other potential users. We also consulted stakeholders including the affected Councils, traffic police, London TravelWatch, Members of Parliament, Assembly Members, the Peabody Trust and local interest groups.

We were particularly keen to get views from residents of

Peabody Hill, after reports of strong feelings expressed at the public meeting;

the Birkbeck triangle, who had expressed strong opposition at the public meeting and in correspondence; and

Park Hall Road, where we proposed to remove a bus ban that had been put in place after complaints of vibrations from double-decker buses using the road to go between Crystal Palace and Norwood bus garage.

2.3 Meetings and site visits Three drop-in sessions were arranged in early July to provide an opportunity for residents to discuss the proposals and their responses in more detail. The first two locations, the Aspire Wellbeing Centre on Park Hall Road and the Peabody Community Centre on Peabody Hill, were chosen to address the areas most impacted by the proposal. The third, on Knight’s Hill, was intended to be convenient for the eastern end of the existing route. Local councillors had suggested that a drop-in session would be appropriate for Peabody Hill in particular as they felt that levels of online engagement on the estate would be low.


2.4 Consultation material, distribution and publicity The consultation was published online where a dedicated webpage included the details and background to the proposal.

We raised awareness of the consultation by distributing a leaflet to properties within 400 metres of the eastern part of the existing route 315 and around the proposed extended route. This reached approximately 15,000 households and businesses. After some residents told us that they had not received the leaflet, we organised a further distribution in the three areas most affected and posters were displayed in bus stops and on street furniture in these areas.

Two targeted emails (an initial email and a reminder) were sent to about 800 registered Oyster Card holders who use route 315.

We also sent an email to stakeholders.

People were invited to respond to the consultation using a variety of methods. They could respond by emailing us at [email protected], by post to a Freepost address or by accessing the online consultation and survey via a website link: tfl.gov.uk/route-315. We provided feedback forms with the survey questions at the drop-in sessions and staff took note of conversations that were held at these sessions. The online material closely followed the information in the leaflet.

In response to a request at the first drop-in session, we published a table of usage on the existing route 315 in each direction on the consultation web site, and made copies available at subsequent drop-in sessions (see Appendix B)

.

mailto:[email protected]


3 Responses from members of the public

We received 516 responses to the consultation from members of the public, including 123 feedback forms completed at the drop-in sessions and 18 notes of conversations at these sessions. Nineteen respondents submitted two responses each (identified by name and email address). These responses have been combined, giving 497 responses in total. Of these, 68 per cent were submitted online and 32 per cent by email, post or feedback forms.

Identification questions asked the respondent for name, email address and postcode, as well as details of any relevant organisation they represented and whether they currently used route 315. Postcodes, or indication of residence recorded at the drop-in sessions, have allowed about half of the responses to be allocated to one of the three areas most impacted by the proposals:

The Peabody Hill estate

The Birkbeck triangle

Park Hall Road/Robson Road

Feedback form

Notes/ letter

Residence area Online at drop-in sessions Email Letter Total

Peabody Hill 17 64 5 86

Birkbeck triangle 72 13 4 2 91

Park Hall Rd/ Robson Rd

55 6 5 3 69

Other/not stated 194 29 4 22 3 251

Total 338 111 18 27 3 497


About 68 per cent of responses were on line, but 80 per cent of the responses from Peabody Hill residents were made at the drop-in sessions.

We asked how respondents had heard about the consultation:

Over 50 of the respondents who selected ‘other’ referred to neighbours or neighbourhood groups. Thirteen had received our leaflet (but did not describe it as a letter), and six had seen our posters. Several respondents commented that they had not received our leaflet despite being in the area that should have been covered.

We also asked if respondents currently used the 315:


3.1 Other responses Residents of Peabody Hill sent a petition (signed by residents from 197 of the 245 homes) objecting to the proposal that a bus route should go around the estate rather than turning at the estate entrance.

Residents of the Birkbeck triangle and Peabody Hill also submitted a folder containing:

A covering letter explaining the material enclosed;

A technical note produced by Mode Transport Planning challenging the proposals (Mode Transport Planning is a consultancy that was commissioned by residents). The Note identifies as key concerns the narrowness of roads on the proposed route, particularly in the Birkbeck Triangle; the limited demand forecast for the bus service; and the need to consider alternatives such as a community-led service;

Two petitions opposing the proposed bus service, signed by 110 and 94 respondents respectively;

86 copies of a letter opposing the proposal to extend the 315 with particular concern about the destinations served; the estimated demand for the service; and the impact on traffic problems and safety in the Birkbeck triangle. 64 of the signatories to this letter were Birkbeck triangle residents, 11 were from the Peabody Hill estate, and 11 from nearby roads or without addresses;

A number of respondents signed two or more of the petitions and letters, and some of these also submitted responses through our consultation process.

These responses serve to indicate the strength of feeling about the proposals, although it would be misleading to aggregate them to suggest total numbers in opposition.

3.2 Views of the proposals There were three closed questions and one open question, as follows:

Question 7: Should we provide a bus service to Peabody Hill? (Yes, No or Not sure)

Question 8: What are your views on the proposed extension of route 315 as a way of providing this service? (Support, Oppose or Not sure)

Question 9: Do you have any preference for the stopping arrangements at Peabody Hill? Respondents were asked to choose between four options:

o Stops at the entrance to the estate, stop and stand at the northern end of the estate;

o Set-down only at the northern end, stop and stand at the entrance of the estate;

o Buses do not go through the estate but turn and stand at the entrance; or o No preference

The open question asked for

reasons for the answers to the closed questions;

views on the suggested route, particularly in the areas of Park Hall Road and Thurlow Hill/Birkbeck Hill;

any suggestions for stops on other parts of the route; and

any other comments on the issue.


Question 7: Should we provide a bus service to Peabody Hill?

Although there was support for providing a bus service, a greater number of respondents expressed opposition. More than half of those who identified themselves as Peabody Hill residents were opposed to the provision of a bus service, with less than a quarter in support.

Question 8: What are your views on the proposed extension of route 315 as a way of providing this service?


The majority of respondents opposed the extension of route 315, including a substantial majority of Peabody Hill residents.

Residents of the Birkbeck triangle and Robson Road/Park Hall Road expressed strong opposition to the 315 extension.


Question 9: Do you have any preference for the stopping arrangements at Peabody Hill?

Those that expressed a view showed a strong preference for buses turning at the entrance of Peabody Hill and not going through the estate roads. Peabody Hill residents felt strongly about this issue, indicated by the comments in the responses and the discussions at the drop-in sessions.

Question 10: Do you have any further comments about our proposals? We asked for any further comments on the proposals. There were 89 issues or themes

generated by this question. A summary of the key issues and themes is provided in

Appendix B. The table below indicates the top five issues raised.

Top five issues and themes Number of comments

Concern over noise disturbance 84

Concern about extra traffic/congestion 75

Environmental impact/Pollution 72

Suggestions to re-route/serve different stops 70

Concern about impact on parking 55

The most frequently mentioned comments were generally unsupportive. Noise disturbance was a concern to 84 respondents, and this was the most frequently mentioned issue for residents of the Birkbeck triangle and Park Hall Road/Robson Road areas.


Seventy five respondents stated that the extra traffic would lead to unacceptable congestion along the route. This featured strongly in the responses from Park Hall Road and Robson Road, where it was suggested that congestion problems were already caused by the existing bus route along Robson Road and delivery vehicles serving the supermarket on Croxted Road near the junction with Park Hall Road. Birkbeck triangle residents expressed related concerns about congestion and the safety impacts of the extra bus traffic.

Seventy three respondents felt that the extension would have an adverse impact on the environment and lead to further pollution. This was also high on the list of concerns of Birkbeck triangle and Park Hall Road/Robson Road residents.

There were 70 comments which suggested that the service should be routed via other local roads, particularly from Park Hall Road and Robson Road residents suggesting routes that would avoid their area (such as Rosendale Road instead of Park Hall Road and Croxted Road, or routeing via the Tulse Hill gyratory). Park Hall Road residents felt that the ban on buses in Park Hall Road should not be lifted, and some were sceptical of statements that any permission for buses would be limited to route 315. Peabody Hill residents suggested preferred connections if a service were to be provided, highlighting doctors’ surgeries, schools, other transport connections (particularly rail stations) and shops.

Fifty five respondents feared that the extension would need additional parking restrictions. This was a particular concern to residents of Peabody Hill and the Birkbeck triangle. (The Peabody Trust had recently marked parking restrictions and installed speed humps on some of the estate roads and reportedly said these were needed for the bus service, although they had apparently told residents that the parking restrictions would not be enforced at present.)

Peabody Hill residents expressed concerns about the loss of privacy and the impact of youth gangs or other unknown people coming onto the estate. Some were concerned that a bus service would make it more difficult for them to establish a play area that Peabody Trust had promised. Birkbeck triangle residents were also concerned about the impact on the regular closures of Thurlow Hill as a play street or for street parties.

A small number of Peabody HiIl residents suggested that a less frequent community minibus service would be more appropriate and was more in line with their expectations when a bus service was discussed with councillors. There was some support for this approach from Birkbeck triangle residents.

Existing users of route 315 were more supportive of the proposals than residents along the proposed extended route. They expressed some concerns about the impacts on frequency, crowding and reliability, and called for an increase in frequency. Some were concerned about the loss of the direct link to West Norwood station from the Valley Road and Canterbury Grove areas.


4 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders

Sixteen stakeholders responded, identified by question 3 (If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group, please provide us with the name). These responses are summarised in the following table and discussed below:

Organisation/role

Do you use

route 315?

Should we provide a bus

service to Peabody Hill?

Views on Proposed

extension of route 315?

Views on stopping at

Peabody Hill?

London TravelWatch No Yes Support No pref

Val Shawcross AM No Yes Support N/A

Fiona Twycross AM N/A Yes Support Stop and stand at

north

Ward Councillors

Gipsy Hill No Yes Oppose No pref

Knight’s Hill (1) No N/A N/A N/A

Knight’s Hill (2) Yes Yes Support No pref

Streatham Wells (joint response from three councillors)

Yes Yes Support No pref

Between the Tracks No No Oppose N/A

Norwood Forum No Yes Support Turn at entrance

Robson Road Residents Association

No No Oppose No pref

Streatham Action transport sub-group

Yes Yes Support No pref

West Dulwich Tenants’ Association

No Yes Support No pref

Aspire Wellbeing No Yes Support N/A

Rosemead Preparatory School

No N/A Not sure N/A

Bromley Residents’ Group

No No Oppose N/A

West Wickham Residents’ Ass’n

Yes No Oppose No pref

4.1 Statutory bodies London TravelWatch London TravelWatch supported the proposed extension, which the organisation had proposed previously.


There were no responses from London boroughs. Most of the route is in Lambeth, going into Wandsworth at the western end. The proposed extension would be in Lambeth except along Croxted Road, which forms the border between Lambeth and Southwark. The Peabody Hill estate and the Birkbeck triangle are in Thurlow Park Ward of Lambeth. Robson Road and Park Hall Road form the boundary between this ward and Gipsy Hill ward, also in Lambeth. The existing and proposed route run along the boundary with Knight’s Hill Ward at Norwood Road and York Hill, and the route westward travels through Knight’s Hill and Streatham Wells Wards towards Streatham.

4.2 Elected Representatives Val Shawcross (London Assembly Member, Lambeth and Southwark) Fiona Twycross (London Assembly Member, All London) Both indicated support for the bus service and for the extension to route 315 in order to provide this. Both said that this would be helpful to the residents of the estate and would improve accessibility for this area which is currently poorly served. Val Shawcross also mentioned the value of the new link to West Dulwich station for others in the area. Fiona Twycross supported the option of the bus stopping and standing at the northern end of the estate with stops in both directions at the southern end.

Anna Birley, Fred Cowell and Max Deckers Dowber (Ward Councillors, Thurlow Park ward, LB Lambeth) All three councillors had been involved in discussions leading up to the consultation and took part in the drop-in sessions at Park Hall Road and Peabody Hill. They each indicated that they want to see improved services to Peabody Hill but did not make formal responses to the consultation.

Matthew Bennett (Ward Councillor, Gipsy Hill ward, LB Lambeth) Jennifer Brathwaite (Ward Councillor, Gipsy Hill ward, LB Lambeth and Cabinet Member for Sustainability and Environment) Councillor Bennett supported the campaign for a bus service for Peabody Hill, but did not support the extension of route 315 because of concerns about the use of Park Hall Road and Robson Road. He suggested that route 201 or P13, which both run along Thurlow Park Road, could be diverted to serve Peabody Hill. Councillor Brathwaite took part in discussion to establish the drop-in sessions but was not able to attend and did not make a formal response.

Jackie Meldrum and Jane Pickard (Ward Councillors, Knight’s Hill ward, LB Lambeth) Both councillors attended the Knight’s Hill drop-in session. Councillor Meldrum expressed concern at the loss of the 315 terminus in Cheviot Road, which was convenient for an older people’s housing scheme. She made a number of comments and suggestions regarding other routes in the area. Councillor Pickard supported the 315 extension and saw it as a valuable additional link between Norwood town centre and West Dulwich, suggesting that the route should go on to Dulwich Village if it could not serve Peabody Hill. She was aware of the concerns of residents about the narrowness of the roads in the Birkbeck triangle.


Malcolm Clark, Mohammed Seedat and Amélie Treppass (Ward Councillors, Streatham Wells ward, LB Lambeth) These three councillors submitted a joint response, supporting the extension of route 315 and making comments and suggestions about the service on the existing route. They emphasised the importance of the route to residents in the Valley Road area, and called for the route to be made more frequent. They made other comments about traffic management in the area, the environmental impact of buses, the reliability of bus arrival time information and the provision of public transport in Streatham.

4.3 Local bodies Between the Tracks (BTT) – an after school club for children and young people living in the three linked social housing estates (Lairdale Estate, Peabody Hill and Rosendale Road Estate). BTT offers help with homework and school project work and a range of educational activities. The response opposed the introduction of a bus service to Peabody Hill and expressed concern about unsavoury characters coming into the area, particularly in the context of gang conflicts in south London and the threat to young people in the estates.

Norwood Forum – a local group in the Norwood area. The response supported providing a bus service by the extension to route 315, saying this would reduce the isolation of the Peabody Hill. They group said that turning the bus at the entrance to the estate would minimise the disturbance to estate residents, and expressed concern about the possible disruption on Robson Road.

Robson Road Residents Association The Association expressed strong opposition to extending the 315 along Robson Road, saying this would exacerbate existing problems of noise, congestion, and speeding, as well as adding to the existing difficulties with the signal phasing at the junction with Norwood Road

Streatham Action Transport sub-group Streatham Action is an apolitical pressure group seeking improvements for the residents of Streatham across a variety of areas of concern including transport. The Transport sub-group supported the proposed extension to the 315. The response said that this would add significantly to the poor east-west public transport links in the area. Residents in the Streatham and Balham areas attending workplaces or schools in Dulwich would benefit significantly, which could lead to a reduction in car usage and help with traffic problems on the South Circular at peak times.

The group appreciated the concerns of Park Hall Road residents but felt that this could be a viable route option. The response also proposed that the route should be extended beyond Peabody Hill to Kings College Hospital, Denmark Hill, to make an important bus connection.

West Dulwich Tenants Association The Association said that they have been campaigning for a bus service for 15 years, to reduce the isolation of the area and improve access for people with young children and the elderly. They believed that having a bus service to Peabody Hill would increase the wellbeing of the tenants.


4.4 Other local organisations Aspire Wellbeing – a centre on Park Hall Road offering services for adults aged 18-64 with a physical or sensory disability. The centre offers day care and rehabilitation services for members, and respite to families and carers. The response said that accessible public transport is important to Aspire members who can travel independently or with travel buddies.

Aspire supported the proposed extension to route 315 to and from Peabody Hill. Having the new bus route as an additional option to route 322 would enable a number of members who live locally to become less reliant on taxis, cabs and a dial a ride service which can be very costly. Furthermore, with alternative travel option members would become less reliant on a council funded transport service.

Rosemead Preparatory School The school has two sites on Thurlow Park Road on the route of the proposed extension. Older pupils (Years 3- 6) are in the buildings at the junction of Lancaster Avenue with Thurlow Park Road (Thurlow Park Road site) whilst the younger ones (Nursery - Year 2) are in the former church on the Elmcourt Road junction (opposite Lovelace Road). Staff, pupils, parents and carers frequently walk between the two sites. Rosemead supported the principle of improving public transport in this area, although they said it was unlikely that those working, being taught or visiting the school would use the extension.

Rosemead would be concerned if changes to bus stops would result in the school sites being further distant from the stops serving the 201 and P13 routes which are used by people travelling to and from the school, or disrupt the use of the loading bay outside the Thurlow Park Road.

The school commented that Thurlow Hill, Birkbeck Hill and Lovelace Road are narrow and heavily parked, and expressed concern that additional bus traffic and resulting congestion in these roads would cause safety issues and reduce the attractiveness of walking and cycling as a mode of transport. The school was also concerned about safety at school start and finish times on Thurlow Park Road (the South Circular Road), which has high traffic speeds and visibility problems

4.5 Other organisations Bromley Residents’ Group West Wickham Residents’ Association – a local group in part of Bromley Both disagreed with the proposals, arguing that we should use resources instead to address issues in Bromley and Bexley, with particular mention of overcrowding on bus route 162.


5 Summary and conclusions

There is majority opposition to providing a bus service to Peabody Hill as proposed. This is most strongly felt by residents of the areas where we proposed to run route 315 and there is no or limited bus service at present. It is also marked among residents of the Peabody Hill estate who would benefit most from the bus service. Peabody Hill residents showed similar responses to the proposal for a bus service in general and to the idea of the 315 extension.

Most who commented on the routeing and stopping arrangements at Peabody Hill felt that any bus should stop and turn at the southern entrance to the estate; this view was strongly endorsed by residents of Peabody Hill itself. It is possible that some of the opposition to any bus service was based on a belief that a bus would have to travel around the estate.


Appendix A – Consultation materials

A1 Consultation Leaflet


A2 Posters shown at bus stops and lamp columns between Robson Road and Peabody Hill


A3 A1 size maps for discussion at drop-in sessions





A4 Copy of CRM email campaign


A5 Copy of website text



A6 Feedback form (A5) for drop-in sessions


A7 Table of Route 315 usage


Appendix B – Distribution area of the consultation leaflet


Appendix C – List of stakeholders consulted

London TravelWatch

Elected Members

Andrew Boff AM

Caroline Pidgeon AM

Darren Johnson AM

Fiona Twycross AM

Gareth Bacon AM

Jenny Jones AM

Joanne McCartney AM

Murad Qureshi AM

Nicky Gavron AM

Richard Tracey AM

Stephen Knight AM

Tom Copley AM

Valerie Shawcross AM

Victoria Borwick AM, MP Kensington

Chuka Umunna MP Streatham

Helen Hayes MP Dulwich and West Norwood

Jane Ellison MP Battersea

Sadiq Khan MP Tooting

Cllr Anna Birley Thurlow Park Ward, Lambeth

Cllr Fred Cowell Thurlow Park Ward, Lambeth

Cllr Max Deckers-Dowber Thurlow Park Ward, Lambeth

Cllr Jennifer Brathwaite Gypsy Hill Ward, Lambeth

Cllr Matthew Bennett Gypsy Hill Ward, Lambeth

Cllr Niranjan Francis Gypsy Hill Ward, Lambeth

Cllr Amelie Treppass Streatham Wells Ward, Lambeth

Cllr Malcolm Clark Streatham Wells Ward, Lambeth

Cllr Mohammed Seedat Streatham Wells Ward, Lambeth

Cllr Jackie Meldrum Knight’s Hill Ward, Lambeth

Cllr Jane Pickard Knight’s Hill Ward, Lambeth

Cllr Sonia Winifred Knight’s Hill Ward, Lambeth

Cllr Robert Hill St Leonards Ward, Lambeth

Cllr Saleha Jaffer St Leonards Ward, Lambeth

Cllr Scott Ainslie St Leonards Ward, Lambeth

Cllr Anne Kirby Village Ward, Southwark

Cllr Jane Lyons Village Ward, Southwark

Cllr Michael Mitchell Village Ward, Southwark

Cllr Andy Simmons College Ward, Southwark

Cllr Helen Hayes College Ward, Southwark

Cllr Jon Hartley College Ward, Southwark


Local Authorities

London Borough of Lambeth

London Borough of Southwark

London Borough of Wandsworth

London Councils

Police & Health Authorities

London Ambulance Service

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority

Metropolitan Police

Lambeth Safer Transport Team

Southwark Safer Transport Team

Transport Groups

AA Motoring Trust

Alliance of British Drivers

Association of Car Fleet Operators

British Motorcyclists Federation

Freight Transport Association

Green Flag Group

Motorcycle Action Group

Motorcycle Industry Association

Road Haulage Association

Local Interest Groups

Herne Hill Forum

Herne Hill Society

Southwark Business Club

Streatham Action Transport sub-group

Streatham Vale Property Occupiers Association

Virtual Norwood Forum

Other stakeholders

Action on Hearing Loss (formerly RNID)

Age Concern London

Age UK

Alzheimer's Society

Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance

BT

Campaign for Better Transport

Confederation of British Industry (CBI)

CTC, the national cycling charity

Disability Alliance

Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

EDF Energy

Greater London Forum for the Elderly

Guide Dogs for the Blind Association


Other stakeholders

Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People (JCMBPS)

Joint Mobility Unit

Living Streets

London Cycling Campaign

London Older People's Strategy Group

MIND

National Children's Bureau

National Grid

RADAR London Access Forum

RNIB

Royal Mail

Sense

Sixty Plus

Stroke Association

Sustrans

Thames Water

The British Dyslexia Association

Documents

Consultation on proposed extension to bus route 315 · 2016. 3. 11. · Route 315 Consultation Report 6 2 The consultation This consultation was designed to enable us to understand