This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Clapham Old Town: Correspondence between Kate Hoey MP and TfL'.

From:
HOEY, Kate [xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xx]
Sent:
11 January 2013 14:00
To:
Cc:

 'xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xxx.xx'; 
; Daniels Leon
Subject:
RE: Clapham Gateway and Equality Impact Assessment Draft Reply
Dear 
 Don't worry  we will be lobbying very hard- I personally will take this up everywhere 
as spending TFL money which reduces the level of service to bus users will be disgraceful thanks 
Kate 
 
________________________________________ 
From: 
Sent: 11 January 2013 13:54 
To: HOEY, Kate; 
Cc: 
 
'xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xxx.xx'; 
 
Subject: RE: Clapham Gateway and Equality Impact Assessment Draft Reply 
 
Dear Kate 
 
I can confirm that TfL has not yet received the business case from Lambeth.  When it is received, I 
am happy to circulate it. 
 
I cannot advise you on whether you should lobby on this matter. 
 
Best regards. 
 
 
Head of Borough Projects and Programmes 
Transport for London Surface Transport 
11th Floor, Zone 11Y8, Palestra, 197 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8NJ 
tel: 
 
email: 
| www.tfl.gov.uk 
 
  Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail 
 
-----Original Message----- 
From: HOEY, Kate [mailto:xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xx] 
Sent: 11 January 2013 13:49 
To: 
 
Cc: 
 
'xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xxx.xx'; 
 
Impact Assessment Draft Reply 
 
Dear 
 Can you  confirm again that no business plan has yet been received from Lambeth 
and that when it is you  will allow us to see it. Can you  also confirm that we will be able to lobby 
hard to ensure that funding is NOT given if there are not live stands.  Thanks Kate 
1

 
________________________________ 
From: 
Sent: 11 January 2013 13:37 
To: 
HOEY, Kate 
Cc: 
 
'xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xxx.xx'; 
 
Subject: RE: Clapham Gateway and Equality Impact Assessment Draft Reply 
 
Dear 
 
 
As previously advised, both I and members of my team have only ever referred to the existing 
facility as being used to drop off and pick up passengers in briefings to the Deputy Mayor or 
previous Deputy Chairman of TfL.  What I said, is that the current arrangements do not meet 
accessibility and safety requirements, as passengers have to board and alight from the 
carriageway.  In accessibility terms this is a particular problem for wheelchair users, as the buses 
cannot deploy their ramps. 
 
At each stage in the development of the proposals the views of colleagues within London Buses 
have been sought.   TfL does consider there are advantages for bus passengers in having live 
stands within the Old Town (you will recall I provided Lambeth with a plan showing how this could 
be accommodated and recommended this option be included in the consultation).  That said, both 
this option and the ‘dead stand’ option are considered operationally acceptable to London Buses. 
 
The report to Surface Board will make clear that two options were developed and will set out the 
issues relating to both.  However, as you will note from the attached letter from the Commissioner 
and Deputy Mayor to the Leader of Lambeth (dated 24 October 2012), TfL is prepared to support 
the borough if the requirements in respect of traffic modelling, the business case and other 
matters are satisfactorily addressed. 
 
Yours sincerely 
 
 
Head of Borough Projects and Programmes 
Transport for London4Surface Transport 
11th Floor, Zone 11Y8, Palestra, 197 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8NJ 
tel: 
 
email: 
<mailto:
> | www.tfl.gov.uk<http://www.tfl.gov.uk/> 
 
P  Please consider the environment before printing 
 
 
From: 
Sent: 03 January 2013 10:16 
To: xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xx; 
Cc: 
xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xxx.xx; 
Subject: RE: Clapham Gateway and Equality Impact Assessment Draft Reply 
 
Dear 
 
 
2

could you answer the questions I put to you yesterday? For the sake of coherence I will 
summarise them as follows: 
 
1) Why did your team brief Daniel Moylan and Isabel Dedring that the current Clapham Old Town 
terminus was a dead stand used by passengers at drivers' discretion when that is factually wrong?
 
2) Why in November 2011 did you agree to a dead-stands only Gateway proposal with no prior 
consultation or notification of Leon Daniels? 
 
3) Will the Surface Transport Panel have the option of funding live as well as dead stands, or will 
the Gateway proposal before it be soley based on dead stands? 
 
4) Why have you been extensively discussing TfL funding space to be used soley for private 
clients of a pub for outdoor drinking? 
 
I think if you could answer the above questions, that would assist my understand of TfL's position 
 
Yours sincerely 
 
 
________________________________ 
 
*********************************************************************************** 
 
The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the 
use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude 
any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any 
attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received 
this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify xxxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xx. 
This email has been sent from Transport for London, or from one of the companies within its 
control within the meaning of Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Further 
details about TfL and its subsidiary companies can be found at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/ourcompany, 
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer 
viruses. 
 
*********************************************************************************** 
 
 
 
________________________________ 
 
UK Parliament Disclaimer: 
This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify 
the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not 
permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage 
caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. 
 
________________________________ 
 
UK Parliament Disclaimer: 
This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify 
the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not 
3

permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage 
caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. 
4