Supplementary memorandum by Docklands
Light Railway (RT 23A)
TRANSPORT & WORKS
ACT PROCEDURES
As you are aware DLR has only had limited experience
of the Transport & Works Act procedures primarily associated
with the London City Airport Extension.
DLR has always tried to be open in its dealings
with its neighbours and therefore the requirements to carry out
full consultation under the procedures was not an onerous task
but one which we feel benefited the project. We have carried out
two major phases of consultation—the first of which involved
sending out a consultation leaflet to the 3000 local residents
and other interested parties. This resulted in over 10 per cent
response, 90 per cent of which were in favour of the project.
We also held a number of local meetings at which residents could
hear more about the project but also voice any fears they had.
We carried out visits to the other parts of the DLR system for
local residents so they could see the design treatment and the
nature of the DLR viaduct design. This consultation and series
of visits paid dividends in helping the residents to understand
how the extension might affect them.
We also felt it was essential that we kept residents
informed as the project progressed and a second phase of consultation
was therefore carried out informing them of progress on the project
and the likely timescales for making an application for a TWA
Order.
Our experience of using the procedures has so
far been good but we are under no illusions that there will not
be objections to the proposed scheme, particularly from the "institutional
objectors". The London City Airport Extension project is
a fairly localised project and this has enabled us to achieve
good coverage for the information and get appropriate responses
(although this has also involved a certain amount of legwork!).
Carrying out a similar level of consultation on large projects
such as Thameslink 2000, may not be as practical.
We have not found the procedures to be overly
expensive compared with the former Parliamentary Bill process
and we feel we have managed to achieve good progress in a short
timescale. Again the characteristics of the area through which
we intend to build the extension (ie partly brownfield sites)
possibly make the DLR extension an easier prospect when compared
to tunnelling through Central London.
In summary therefore we feel that the current
procedures have not caused difficulty but we may have been fortunate
in the nature of the project we are promoting.
We have heard a number of comments from other
organisations regarding the conduct of the inquiry particularly
the timescale for receiving a decision. We believe we have worked
up good relations with the DETR TWA unit and will await continuing
good responses from them in the conduct of the remainder of the
process.
LEWISHAM EXTENSION—PUBLIC
SECTOR COMPARATOR
We understand that economists at the Private
Finance Unit and the Department of the Environment carried out
an appraisal of the Lewisham Extension scheme as a public sector
comparator which indicated that the proposal PFI scheme gave better
value.
February 2000
| 
