Supp Report on P2 Consultation - Chapter 12 Cremorne Wharf Depot

7/31/2019 Supp Report on P2 Consultation - Chapter 12 Cremorne Wharf Depot

1/63


2/63

12 Cremorne Wharf Depot

Thames Tunnel

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

List of contents

Page number

12 Cremorne Wharf Depot ............................................................................... 12-112.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 12-112.2 Number of respondents ...................................................................... 12-212.3 Site selection ...................................................................................... 12-212.4 Alternative sites .................................................................................. 12-812.5 Management of construction works .................................................... 12-912.6 Permanent design and appearance .................................................. 12-3712.7 Management of operational effects .................................................. 12-4412.8 Our view of the way forward ............................................................. 12-57


3/63


4/63


Table 12.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environmentduring construction ....................................................................... 12-18

Table 12.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposedto address the effects on the historic environment during construction..................................................................................................... 12-18

Table 12.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality andcontamination during construction ................................................ 12-19

Table 12.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed

to address the effects on land quality and contamination duringconstruction .................................................................................. 12-20

Table 12.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment(terrestrial) during construction ..................................................... 12-21

Table 12.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposedto address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) duringconstruction .................................................................................. 12-22

Table 12.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibrationduring construction ....................................................................... 12-22

Table 12.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposedto address the effects of noise and vibration during construction . 12-24

Table 12.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space andrecreation issues during construction ........................................... 12-25

Table 12 5 22 S pporti e and ne tral comments relation to planning and


5/63


Table 12.5.31 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visualeffects during construction............................................................ 12-30

Table 12.5.32 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to transport and accessduring construction ....................................................................... 12-31

Table 12.5.33 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and accessissues during construction ............................................................ 12-31

Table 12.5.34 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the measuresproposed to address the effects of transport and access during

construction .................................................................................. 12-34Table 12.5.35 Objections, issues and concerns for addressing transport and access

during construction ....................................................................... 12-34Table 12.5.36 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk

during construction ....................................................................... 12-36Table 12.5.37 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed

to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction 12-37Table 12.6.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right issues that have

influenced our permanent design for this site? (Q5) ..................... 12-37Table 12.6.2 Please give us your views about our proposals for the permanent

design and appearance of the site (Q6) ....................................... 12-38Table 12.6.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the permanent design

and appearance of the site ........................................................... 12-38


6/63


Table 12.7.10 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to natural environment(terrestrial) during operation ......................................................... 12-50

Table 12.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposedto address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) duringoperation ...................................................................................... 12-50

Table 12.7.12 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to noise and vibrationduring operation ........................................................................... 12-51

Table 12.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration

during operation ........................................................................... 12-51Table 12.7.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed

to address the effects of noise and vibration during operation ..... 12-52Table 12.7.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed

to address the effects on planning and development during operation..................................................................................................... 12-53

Table 12.7.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effectsduring operation ........................................................................... 12-53

Table 12.7.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposedto address socio-economic effects during operation .................... 12-53

Table 12.7.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposedto address the effects on structures and utilities during operation 12-54

Table 12.7.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual

ff t d i ti 12 55


7/63


Supplementary report on phase two consultation 12-1


12.1 Introduction

12.1.1 This chapter covers the feedback comments received during phase two consultation regarding our preferred site Cremorne Wharf Depot. This site would be used to connect the existinglocal combined sewer overflow (CSO), known as the Lots Road Pumping Station CSO, to the main tunnel.

12.1.2 At phase one consultation, Cremorne Wharf Foreshore was presented as our preferred site to intercept the Lots Road Pumping Station CSO. However, following a reassessment ofpotential sites, Cremorne Wharf Depot was iden tified as our preferred site to intercept the Lots Road Pumping Station CSO and presented at phase two consul tation. For furtherinformation regarding the proposals for this site at phase two consultation, refer to the Cremorne Wharf Depot site information paper.

12.1.3 As part of our phase two consultation we identified one shortlisted site, Cremorne Wharf Foreshore (site 1), to connect the Lots Road Pumping Station CSO to the main tunnel. Wherefeedback comments were received on this shortlisted site, they are presented in section 12 .3 (site selection) and section 12.4 (alternative sites) of this chapter.

Structure of this chapter

12.1.4 This chapter is organised as listed below, which reflects the structure of the phase two consultation feedback form:

section 12.2 Number of respondents

section 12.3 Site selection

section 12.4 Alternative sites

section 12.5 Management of construction works

section 12.6 Permanent design and appearance

section 12.7 Management of operational effects section 12.8 Our view of the way forward.

12.1.5 In sections 12.3 to 12.7 we present details of the feedback comments raised, the types and total number of respondents, and our response to feedback comments. Where specificobjections, issues or concerns have been raised, the final column of the tables indicates whether, in response to the feedback received:

C we are considering or proposing change or additional mitigation1 to that set out in our phase two consultation material

N we do not propose to amend our proposals.

12.1.6 A full list of the phase two consultation material is set out in Annex A to this report.

12.1.7 Where a response contains a reference to our website, go towww.thamestunnelconsultation.co.ukfor further information, or to access the documents referenced.

1Mitigation here refers to a wide range of measures set out in our phase two consultation proposals including for example, the Air management planand other documents as well as those mitigation measures set out in the PEIR.
http://www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk/http://www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk/http://www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk/http://www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk/


8/63



12.2 Number of respondents

12.2.1 A total of 42 respondents provided feedback comments on Cremorne Wharf Depot, of which ten were received after the close of phase two consultation. Table 12.2.1 sets out the differentgroups who provided feedback for this site.

Table 12.2.1 Number of respondents commenting on Cremorne Wharf Depot

Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions

6 respondents

- Design Council CABE (CABE)- Consumer Council for Water (CCW)

- English Heritage (EH)

- Environment Agency (EA)

- Greater London Authority (GLA)

- Port of London Authority (PLA)

1 respondent

- Royal Borough of Kensingtonand Chelsea (RBKC)

5 respondents 30 respondents 0 petitions

12.2.2 Feedback on this site was received in a number of forms, including feedback forms and correspondence (emails and letters).

12.3 Site selection

12.3.1 A series of sites is required in order to build and operate the Thames Tunnel project. To determine our preferred scheme, we are undertaking a site selection process, using amethodology that was adopted after consultation with the relevant local authorities and statutory consultees. For further information on our methodology and process, refer to:

Site selection project information paper, which sets out the process we followed to find and select our preferred sites

Site selection methodology paper, which details the methodology used to select construction sites along the route of the main tunnel

Site selection background technical paper, which provides supporting technical information to the Site selection methodology papersuch as the engineering requirements for the sizeof construction sites.

12.3.2 The results of the site selection process up to phase two consultation are set out in:

Site information papers,which provide summary information on each of our preferred sites, including the reasons for selecting them

Phase two scheme development report, which describes how our proposals for the Thames Tunnel project have evolved and provides a detailed account of the site selection processfor each of the preferred sites.

12.3.3 In this section, we set out the feedback comments received in relation to the selection of Cremorne Wharf Depot as our preferred site, together with our responses. Our responses providerelevant details of the site selection process and its findings up to phase two consultation. Where appropriate we have also identified further work that we have undertaken in relation toour preferred site, such as the preparation of our Preliminary environmental information report(PEIR). As part of the project design development process, we continue to assess how theeffects arising from the proposed development can be addressed. The output of our assessment up to phase two consultation is contained in appendix J of the Design development reportand our PEIR(volume 15).

12.3.4 Where respondents commented on matters relating to management of construction works, permanent design and appearance or the management of operational effects at CremorneWharf Depot, these comments are reported in sections12.5 to 12.7.

Number of respondents

12.3.5 During phase two consultation, respondents were asked to comment on the decision to select Cremorne Wharf Depot as our preferred site to intercept the Lots Road Pumping StationCSO (see question 2 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). Table 12.3.1 sets out details of the differentgroups who responded and were asked to select supportive, opposed/concerned or dont know/unsure. Tables 12.3.2 and 12.3.3 detail the feedback comments received in relation tothis site. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments selected supportive, opposed/concerned or dont know/unsure.


9/63



Table 12.3.1 Views on whether Cremorne Wharf Depot should be our preferred site (Q2)

Respondent type Number of respondents

Total Supportive Opposed/concerned Dont know/unsure

Statutory consultees 0

Local authorities 0

Landowners 4 2 2

Community consultees 17 9 7 1

Petitions 0

Total 21 11 9 1

Supportive and neutral comments in relation to our preferred site

Table 12.3.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to selection of our preferred site

Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID No. Our response

12.3.6 Support the use of the preferred site. 9285LO, 7458, LR9114, LR9119, LR9447 5 Your support is noted and welcomed.

12.3.7 The preferred site is more suitable thanCremorne Wharf Foreshore, which was putforward at phase one consultation. Reasonsfor its suitability include:

- access through Cremorne Gardens is not

required

- should reduce costs

- the amount of infrastructure required hasbeen significantly reduced

- the site has been relocated onshore andbelow-ground.

GLA, RBKC, 7457, 7458, 9078, 9303 6

12.3.8 Thames Water has taken objections raisedat phase one consultation into account insite selection.

9303 1 Noted. We have considered the comments received at phase oneconsultation and where possible these have been incorporated into therevised proposals we presented at phase two consultation.

12.3.9 Agree that Lots Road Pumping Station CSOneeds to be intercepted, and that CremorneWharf Depot is a suitable location fromwhich to do so.

RBKC, 8654 2 Noted.

12.3.10 The site is a suitable size and/or hassufficient capacity to accommodate theproposals.

7754 1 Agreed.

12.3.11 The site is an industrial site; it waspreviously used as a power station and nowcontains a recycling facility.

7754 1 Noted. That a site is industrial land was one of the considerations takeninto account as part of our site selection process.

12.3.12 The site is sufficiently far away fromresidential areas/is not a residential area

7754 1 Noted. Effect on residents was one of the considerations taken intoaccount as part of our site selection process as well as the ability tomitigate likely significant effects.


10/63




12.3.13 Use of the site would not result in the loss ofopen space/use of greenfield sites.

7754 1 Noted. The effect of our proposals on open space as well as the abilityto mitigate likely significant effect is one of the considerations taken intoaccount as part of our site selection process.

12.3.14 Support for the changes to the extent of thepreferred site since phase one consultation.Specifically the undertaking by ThamesWater and/or the RBKC not to use any part

of Cremorne Gardens for construction workor as a site access route.

9260 1 Noted.

12.3.15 Qualified support for the preferred siteincluded:

- any site is acceptable subject toappropriate mitigation

EH, RBKC 2 Since selecting Cremorne Wharf Depot as our preferred site, we havebegun assessing the likely significant effects that may arise as a resultof the works as part of an environmental impact assessment. This willset out measures necessary to mitigate any significant adverse effectsthat are identified. An Environmental statement, which records thefindings of the environmental impact assessment, will accompany ourDCO application.The initial environmental assessment work that hasbeen carried out on the project is contained in the PEIR(volume 15),which is available on our website. As part of the phase two consultation,we have also sought feedback on the potential effects arising from ourproposals and how the effects would be mitigated. Where possible, wewill take feedback comments into account as we develop our proposals.

- the site needs to be given back with newfacilities to support the current waste use.

The proposed layout of our works seeks to ensure that Cremorne WharfDepot can be returned to its existing use (waste facility and safeguardedwharf) on the completion of the Thames Tunnel project.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to our preferred site

Table 12.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection of our preferred site

Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. Our response

12.3.16 This preferred site is generally unsuitable. 8402 1 The sites that we consulted on at phase two consultation have beenidentified through an extensive site selection process (see our Siteselection methodology paperon our website). We consulted on andagreed the methodology with key stakeholders including potentiallydirectly affected local authorities and utilised a multidisciplinary approachto assess potential CSO sites against engineering, planning,environmental, property and community considerations.

We recognise that given the locations where we are seeking to constructand operate the tunnel, that many of the shortlisted sites are constrained.However, based on our assessment we consider that on balance,Cremorne Wharf Depot is the most suitable. This is because it is abrownfield site and provides a suitable and available land-based site,avoiding the need to build a structure in the foreshore of the RiverThames. Access to the site off Lots Road can be provided via existingaccess points on either side of the existing pumping station. All the workscan be accommodated within the depot area, which creates a self-contained site that is likely to have less effect on surrounding residential

12.3.17 Alternative sites have not been properlyconsidered. No real alternative sites havebeen put forward by Thames Water, giventhat both the foreshore and the depot shouldhave been excluded as sites based onThames Waters own criteria (proximity to

concentrated residential areas). The onlyalternative site available for comment is theforeshore immediately in front of the currentpreferred site. Consultation has thereforebeen carried out in too limited a way, andthe choice of Cremorne Wharf Depot as thepreferred site is consequently premature.

9484LO 1


11/63




properties.

For further details on the results of the site selection process includingour assessment of shortlisted sites, refer to appendix J of the Phase twoscheme development report.

12.3.18 Site selection has not incorporatedcomments and objections from phase oneconsultation or interim engagement.

9484LO 1 Following phase one consultation, we considered the comments fromphase one consultation, along with feedback from on-going engagement,new information and undertook further technical work.

As a result of earlier feedback we have amended our proposals to locateour works within the existing council depot, and remove the access routethrough Cremorne Gardens. These changes to our proposals werepresented at phase two consultation. Refer to Cremorne Wharf Depotsite information paperfor further details.

12.3.19 Reasons for not selecting one of theshortlisted sites are unjustified/incorrect/flawed.

9484LO 1 We believe that our assessments, which have been carried out inaccordance with the Site selection methodology paper, arecomprehensively explained in appendix J of the Phase two schemedevelopment report.

Cremorne Wharf Depot is considered more suitable than the shortlistedsites because this brownfield site provides a suitable and available land-based site, avoiding the need to build a structure in the foreshore of theRiver Thames. Access to the site off Lots Road can be provided viaexisting access points on either side of the existing pumping station. Allthe works can be accommodated within the depot area, which creates a

self-contained site that is likely to have less effect on surroundingresidential properties.

We recognise that both our preferred site at phase one consultation,Cremorne Wharf Foreshore, and our preferred site at phase twoconsultation would have effects on neighbouring residential properties.However, we consider that the proposals at Cremorne Wharf Depotwould have less effect on residential properties. Our proposals at phaseone consultation included an access route through Cremorne Gardensand our construction site was located in front of Chelsea Wharf. Weconsider that our proposals at Cremorne Wharf Depot are morecontained within the site and therefore would have less effect. It shouldalso be noted that, as set out in appendix J of Phase two schemedevelopment, there are a number of considerations which lead to ourconclusion to select Cremorne Wharf Depot as our preferred site, ofwhich residential amenity was one.

Since selecting Cremorne Wharf Depot as our preferred site, we havebegun assessing the likely significant effects of the works as part of anenvironmental impact assessment. The environmental impactassessment, when complete, will identify any mitigation necessary tominimise disruption. An Environmental statement, which records thefindings of the environmental impact assessment, will accompany ourDCO application.

12.3.20 Reasons for selecting this site are flawed/questionable. In particular:

- noise mitigation and odour controlmeasures have not been fully assessed

- Thames Water's consultation materialsstate that use of the depot, rather than

the foreshore is "likely to have less effecton surrounding residential properties" -this is not the case given that the depot isimmediately next to Chelsea Wharf andvery close to other residentialdevelopments; without understanding thecumulative impacts, any decision takento proceed is premature.

9484LO 1

12.3.21 Query why shortlisted sites have not beenidentified.

GLA 1 The shortlisted sites were listed in the Cremorne Wharf Depot siteinformation paper. Appendix J of the Phase two scheme development


12/63




reportsets out all the sites assessed as part of the site selection processincluding the shortlisted sites.

12.3.22 The site selection methodology is flawed/incorrect/unjustified because residentialsites have not been excluded as stated.

9484LO 1 The sites on which we have consulted were identified through anextensive site selection process as set out in the Site selectionmethodology paperthat is available on our website. This methodologywas agreed with key stakeholders, including potentially directly affectedlocal authorities, prior to its use. The paper explains how environmental,planning, engineering, property and community considerations were

taken into account in the site selection process.

Our site selection methodology does not preclude the selection of sitesthat are near or adjacent to residential property; rather it precludes theselection of a site that is itself, in whole or part, residential. Our preferredsite is located on industrial and is consistent with our site selectionmethodology.

12.3.23 Site selection should avoid sites that havebeen allocated for, are known to beawaiting, or have planning permission forredevelopment. Specifically, the proposalswill have an impact on the residentialamenity of future residents of the Lots RoadPower Station site.

9484LO 1 The planning status of a site was taken into account along with otherconsiderations as set out in the Site selection methodology paper. Aprofessional judgement was then made in relation to the impact on theplanning status of that site. It should be noted that even if sites havebeen allocated or have secured a planning permission, it does notpreclude the use of the site. Other factors such as whether the planningpermission would be implemented need to be considered; even then itmay be possible for construction work to be phased so that both the

approved development and the Thames Tunnel project can beconstructed. In relation to designated regeneration areas, sites locatedwithin one do not necessary preclude use of the site as our proposed usein many case can be complementary or beneficial to some of theregeneration aims.

With regard to the effect on residential amenity of future residents refer toparagraph 12.5.89 for our response to this feedback comment.

12.3.24 Selection of this preferred site has beenpoorly justified/inadequately explained. Inparticular technical issues such as airquality, noise, traffic generation and impactson the River Thames do not appear to havebeen taken into consideration.

9484LO 1 We believe that our assessments, which have been carried out inaccordance with the Site selection methodology paper, arecomprehensively explained in appendix J of the Phase two schemedevelopment report.

12.3.25 The cost of using the site is too high/not

cost-effective.

8402 1 Cost is one of the considerations that inform site assessments, but it is

not an overriding factor that outweighs all other engineering, planning,environmental, community, property and wider economic considerations.High acquisition costs alone would not outweigh positive considerationssuch as use of brownfield land, conformity with planning policy, andability to construct/operate the proposed works on the site. Equally, alow value site would not result in a site becoming our preferred site, ifthere were significant planning, environmental or community concernsassociated with its use. In determining our preferred site, a balanced

judgement is therefore made, taking planning, environment, engineering,property and community considerations into account.


13/63




12.3.26 Need more information on site selection,specifically confirmation of the status of thetwo Cremorne Wharf sites.

9484LO 1 As set out in the Cremorne Wharf Depot site information paper,Cremorne Wharf Depot is now our preferred site, which was a changefrom our proposals presented at phase one consultation. CremorneWharf Foreshore remains a shortlisted site to intercept the Lots PumpingStation CSO.

For further details on the results of the site selection process, refer toappendix J of the Phase two scheme development report.

12.3.27 Proposals are not in conformity with PolicyCL5 of the RBKC Core Strategy. 9484LO 1 The primary policy consideration for the Thames Tunnel project will bethe National Policy Statement for Waste Waterwhich was designated byparliament on 26 March 2012. In developing our proposals we have hadregard to the RBKC's policies including Core Strategy Policy CL5. Inaddition we have been assessing all the likely significant effects of theworks as part of an environmental impact assessment. Theenvironmental impact assessment, when complete, will identify anymitigation necessary to minimise disruption. An Environmental statement,which records the findings of the environmental impact assessment, willaccompany our DCO application.

Shortlisted sites

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to shortlisted sites

Table 12.3.4 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to shortlisted sites


12.3.28 Any shortlisted site acceptable subject toappropriate mitigation.

EH 1 Based on our assessment we consider that on balance, CremorneWharf Depot is the most suitable. This is because it is a brownfield siteand provides a suitable and available land-based site, avoiding the needto build a structure in the foreshore of the River Thames. Access to thesite off Lots Road can be provided via existing access points on eitherside of the existing pumping station. All the works can beaccommodated within the depot area, which creates a self-containedsite that is likely to have less effect on surrounding residential properties.


Since selecting Cremorne Wharf Depot as our preferred site, we havebegun assessing the likely significant effects arising from our proposals.Refer to our PEIR(volume 15) and draft CoCPfor further details.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites

Table 12.3.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection to shortlisted sites


12.3.29 The shortlisted site(s) are unsuitable for theproposed use(s). In particular, they wouldlead to the diminution of property values ifthe effects of construction are not properlycontrolled. There would also be impacts on

9484LO, LR9119 2 Based on our assessment, we consider that while Cremorne WharfForeshore is potentially suitable as a CSO site, in comparison to ourpreferred site it is a less suitable site. This is because there is analternative land-based site that would avoid the need to build a structure


14/63




Chelsea Creek, River Thames andforeshore ecology.

in the foreshore of the River Thames.

For further details on the results of the site selection process, refer toappendix J of the Phase two scheme development report.12.3.30 The shortlisted site(s) are unsuitable for the

proposed use(s). In particular, they wouldlead to the diminution of property values ifthe effects of construction are not properlycontrolled. There would also be impacts onChelsea Creek, River Thames and

foreshore ecology.

9484LO, LR9119 2

12.4 Alternative sites

12.4.1 During phase two consultation, respondents were invited to suggest alternative sites that they thought should be used to intercept the Lots Road Pumping Station CSO instead ofCremorne Wharf Depot (see question 3 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The following sites were putforward as possible alternatives:

Table 12.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to Cremorne Wharf Depot

Ref Alternative site suggestions Reasons Respondent ID No. Our response

Other sites

12.4.2 Cremorne Gardens. Lower population density, whichwould cause less disruption.

7315 1 Although not shortlisted at phase two consultation, we have consideredthe use of Cremorne Gardens to intercept Lots Road Pumping StationCSO as part of our site selection process. We consider that Cremorne

Gardens is less suitable than our preferred site because there would bea long and difficult connection between the drop shaft and interceptionchamber of the sewer. Furthermore, comments received at phase oneconsultation objected to the use of Cremorne Gardens as a constructionsite or as part of the access route to the Cremorne Wharf site (ourpreferred site at phase one consultation). In light of that feedback andother technical work, we have changed our preferred site to CremorneWharf Depot.


12.4.3 A less urban site. 7105 1 Sites have been selected on the basis of needing to intercept existingCSOs. CSOs are in fixed locations and the site to intercept the CSOneeds to be on the li ne of, or in close proximity to, the sewer. The areasurrounding the Ranelagh CSO is urban in character and we are not

aware of a less urban site where we could intercept the Ranelagh CSOand bring the flows into the main Thames Tunnel.

12.4.4 Respondents also made the following comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites:


15/63



Supportive and neutral feedback comments

Table 12.4.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites


12.4.5 No alternative site is available; ThamesWater has done their best to surveyalternative sites.

7404 1 Your support is welcomed and noted.

Objections, issues and concerns

12.4.6 No objections, issues and concerns were raised in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites.

12.5 Management of construction works

12.5.1 This section sets out comments received during phase two consultation in relation to the management of construction works at Cremorne Wharf Depot. This includes the identification ofsite specific issues arising from construction activities and proposals for addressing these issues.

12.5.2 During phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with Cremorne Wharf Depot and the ways toaddress these issues (see questions 4a and 4b of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The first part ofquestion 4a and 4b asked respondents to select agree, disagree or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in tables 12.5.1and 12.5.2. Tables 12.5.3 to 12.5.37 detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments confirmedwhether the right issues and the ways to address those issues had been identified

Table 12.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q4a)


Total Yes No Dont know/unsure


Local authorities 0

Landowners 1 1


Petitions 0

Total 15 5 7 3

Table 12.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q4b)


Total Yes No Dont know/unsure


Local authorities 0

Landowners 1 1


Petitions 0

Total 15 5 9 1


16/63



12.5.3 The following sections set out the feedback comments received from respondents in connection with the identification of key issues associated with Cremorne Wharf Depot duringconstruction and proposals to address these issues. Feedback comments are organised under common themes. The themes are:

General themes:

General feedback comments on key issues

General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues

Topic-based themes

Air quality and odour Construction working hours and

programme

Construction site design and layout

Historic environment

Land quality and contamination

Lighting

Natural environment (aquatic)

Natural environment (terrestrial)

Noise and vibration Open space and recreation

Planning and development

Socio-economic

Structures and utilities

Townscape and visual

Transport and access

Water and flood risk

General comments on the identified key issues

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the identified key issues

12.5.4 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to general comments on the identified key issues during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues

Table 12.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to key issues during construction

Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. Our response Outcome

12.5.5 Need to minimise disturbance to nearbyproperties.

GLA 1 Our PEIR(volume 15) provides a preliminary assessment ofthe effects of the scheme on a range of topics, includingnoise and vibration, air quality (including dust emissions)and odour, and transport, based on a methodology that hasbeen agreed with the RBKC. A full assessment of likelysignificant effects together with recommendations formitigation will be provided with the Environmental statementthat is submitted with our DCO application.

N

General comments on the measures proposed to address the key issues

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues

12.5.6 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to general comments on the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues

Table 12.5.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction


12.5.7 Measures to address potential issues areunsatisfactory/unconvincing.

8402 1 The measures set out in the Cremorne Wharf Depot siteinformation paperare intended to provide a broad overview

N


17/63




of how we intend to address potential issues associated withthe site. Further information can be found in the draft CoCPand PEIR(volume 15). Measures proposed to addresspotential likely significant effects are being further developedand considered as part of the environmental impactassessment. The findings of the assessment, together withany recommendations for mitigation, will be available as partof the Environmental statementthat will be submitted with

our DCO application.12.5.8 These are matters for experts to comment

on/not qualified to comment.7105 1 The purpose of consultation is to explore as fully as possible

what those with an interest in the project think about ourproposals. We will have regard to comments received fromboth technical and non-technical consultees.

N

12.5.9 More information on measures to addressissues is needed.

8402 1 We consider that we have undertaken a thorough andcomprehensive consultation exercise. We carefullyconsidered the information we made available at our phasetwo consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficientinformation to respond to the consultation.

Our approach to producing material was that informationshould be made available to members of the community inan accessible form and detailed technical information bemade available for technical consultees, which is consistent

with the guidance provided by the Department forCommunities and Local Government (DCLG) in theirguidance on pre-application consultation.

Information on proposed measures to address issues can befound in the PEIR(volume 15). Measures proposed toaddress likely significant effects are being further developedand considered as part of the environmental impactassessment. The findings of the assessment, together withany recommendations for mitigation, will be available as partof the Environmental statementthat will be submitted withour DCO application.

N

12.5.10 Construction impacts must be minimised atevery stage of construction.

GLA 1 We are developing a CoCPwhich will set out how we willmanage our construction sites to minimise disruption tonearby communities. Measures proposed to addresspotential likely significant effects are being further developed

and considered as part of the environmental impactassessment. The findings of the assessment, together withany recommendations for mitigation, will be available as partof the Environmental statementthat will be submitted withour DCO application.

N

Air quality and odour

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour

12.5.11 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to air quality and odour during construction.


18/63



Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour

Table 12.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during construction


12.5.12 It is not clear what the scale of air qualityand odour effects will be; the assessment todate is very vague.

9285LO, 9303 2 As part of our PEIR(volume 15, section 4) we assessed theair quality, traffic and residential amenity of the proposeddevelopment, based on a methodology that has beendiscussed and agreed with the RBKC. The PEIR(volume15, section 4) which covered air quality and odour topics

embeds the dust mitigation measures in the draft CoCP. Theproposals set out in our draft CoCPare included in thepreliminary assessment. While we acknowledge that this is apreliminary assessment, we believe that sufficientinformation was available for the purposes of our phase twoconsultation. We are preparing a full assessment forsubmission in the Environmental statementas part of ourDCO application. If significant effects are identifiedappropriate mitigation would be proposed.

N

12.5.13 Dust arising from construction activities; therequirement for more frequent cleaning ofwindows, curtains and vehicles. We willnaturally be seeking restitution from ThamesWater for the extra costs involved.

9436LO, LR13496LO, 7457, 7458, 8402,8612, 9260, 9303

8 Our Managing construction project information paperanddraft CoCPset out how dust control measures and dustmonitoring equipment would be put in place to minimiselikely significant effects of dust from construction activities.Our draft CoCPconfirms that an Air management planwillbe prepared and implemented for each site to control dust

emissions, and proposed techniques would be in line withbest practice guidelines. Our preliminary assessment oflikely significant air quality effects as reported in our PEIR(volume 15, section 4) did not identify any significant effectsat residential or other sensitive receptors (such as schools)near this site. We are undertaking an environmental impactassessment, which will include a comprehensiveassessment of the likely significanteffects arising from theproposals. The findings of the assessment, together withany recommendations for mitigation, will be available as partof the Environmental statementthat will be submitted withour DCO application.

We have also published A guide to the Thames Tunnelcompensation programmewhich sets out details ofdisturbance compensation that may be available because of

construction works taking place nearby.

N

12.5.14 Effect of construction site activities and plantemissions on air quality.

RBKC 1 We have set out measures in our draft CoCPthat would beadopted to limit vehicle and plant emissions, including usinglow emission vehicles, turning off engines when not neededand minimising vehicle movements around the site. Ourpreliminary assessment outlined in our PEIR(volume 15,section 4) set out that with these measures in place we donot expect any significant local air quality effects arising fromvehicle and plant emissions at this construction site. We arepreparing a full assessment for submission in the

N


19/63


20/63




together with any recommendations for mitigation, will bereported in the Environmental statementto be submittedwith our DCO application. Our DCO application will alsoinclude a CoCPthat will set out measures that must beimplemented by our contractor to address the potentialeffects on air quality during construction. We are confidenttherefore that the information we have provided is sufficient.

12.5.18 General air pollution effects arising from

construction activities.

8402, 8704, 8971 3 We have completed a preliminary environmental

assessment of the effects of the proposed development,which is set out in our PEIR(volume 15, section 4) whichconsiders the likely significant effects of our construction inrespect of air quality, dust, odour, noise and vibration, whichsingularly or collectively might be classed as 'pollution'. Thisdid not identify any significant effects at residential or othersensitive receptors (such as schools) near this site. A fullassessment of potential 'pollution' will be presented in the Environmental statementthat we will submit with our DCOapplication.

We have also produced a draft CoCPwhich sets outmeasures for managing our works, including sections onnoise and vibration, and air quality as well as details of thevarious regulatory regimes and guidance that we wouldneed to comply with, such as the Control of Pollution Act

1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Healthand Safety at Work Act 1974, the Mayor of London'sAmbient Noise Strategy 2004 and The control of dust andemissions from construction and demolition -Best PracticeGuidance 2008, as well as various British Standards. Ourcompliance with the regulatory regime applicable would bemonitored by the RBKC.

N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour

12.5.19 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures the proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour

Table 12.5.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction


12.5.20 More information is needed on mitigationincluding odour control measures andensuring that dust and particulates areprevented from being released into theenvironment.

RBKC, 9285LO, 9484LO 3 Details of proposed mitigation measures for the site were setout in the PEIR(volume 15, section 4) as part of our phasetwo consultation. The PEIR stated that no specific mitigationmeasures in addition to the CoCPwould be required at thissite for air quality, odour or dust issues. We would requireour contractor to comply with the CoCPin the constructioncontract. Our Environmental statementwill provide a fullassessment of the likely significant effects of construction onair quality, odour and dust and will set out recommendationsfor mitigation. The Environmental statementwill be

N


21/63




submitted as part of our DCO application.

12.5.21 The GLA and London Council's BestPractice Guidance (BPG) The control ofdust and emissions from construction anddemolition should be implemented

GLA, RBKC 2 We can confirm that the Best Practice Guidance has beentaken into account in developing our proposals for this site.Our draft CoCPsets out measures for managing our worksas well as details of the various regulatory regimes andguidance that we would need to comply with, such as theControl of Pollution Act 1974, the Environmental ProtectionAct 1990, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the

Mayor of London's Ambient Noise Strategy 2004 and Thecontrol of dust and emissions from construction anddemolition -Best Practice Guidance 2008, as well asvarious British Standards.

N

Construction working hours and programme

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction working hours and programme

12.5.22 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to construction working hours and programme.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme

Table 12.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme


12.5.23 The construction programme is too long/

concerned about the duration ofconstruction.

8047 1 The programming of works at this site would be configured

to minimise the duration of works and associated disruptionto the local area where possible. The length of theconstruction period as set out in the consultation documentswas the period assessed in the PEIR(volume 15) that workswould be underway and it is hoped that in many cases therewould be periods during which there would be no activity orless intensive activity on some sites.

N

12.5.24 Proposed working hours are too long. 9436LO 1 We plan to carry out the majority of works within standardworking hours, which are 8am-6pm weekdays, and 8am-1pm Saturdays. We may occasionally need to carry outworks outside of standard working hours for reasons suchas undertaking large concrete pours, delivering abnormal,large and heavy loads at times when there is reduced traffic,or making connections onto the existing sewer system atnight when there is low sewage flow. Any working outside of

standard working hours would be subject to additionalconditions to minimise disruption in line with our CoCP.

N

12.5.25 No guarantee that working hours will not beextended.

RBKC 1 Our working hours would be set out in our CoCPwhich willbe submitted as part of our DCO application. In addition asset out in the CoCPour contractors would submit anapplication under section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act1974 to the RBKC to ensure that our works do not have asignificant noise effect on local residents.

N

12.5.26 Concerned about the volume of tunnel 8047 1 Your comments are noted. Our works have been phased to N


22/63




related construction undertaken over thesame seven year period at several sites inthe same area, which includes CarnwathRoad Riverside, Jews Row and CremorneWharf.

deliver the tunnel in line with regulatory requirements. OurEnvironmental statementwill assess the likely significanteffects of the scheme at each site in addition to thecumulative effects associated with other construction worksassociated with the tunnel in the local area.

We are considering revisions to our transport strategy tomove more materials by barge. This would result in fewervehicles on local roads.

It is noted that following phase one of our consultation JewsRow is no longer being proposed as a construction site.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address construction working hours and programme

12.5.27 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the construction programme.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address construction working hours and programme

Table 12.5.8 Objections, issues and concerns for addressing issues in relation to the construction programme


12.5.28 No weekend working. 7295 1 We plan to carry out the majority of works within standardworking hours, which are 8am-6pm weekdays, and 8am-1pm Saturdays. We may occasionally need to carry outworks outside of standard working hours for reasons suchas delivering abnormal, large and heavy loads at times when

there is reduced traffic, or making connections onto theexisting sewer system at night when there is low sewageflow. Working hours additional to the standard working hourswould be agreed with the RBKC and we would notify thelocal residents beforehand.

N

12.5.29 No overnight/24-hour working (continuous). 7295 1 N

12.5.30 Minimise the extent and duration ofconstruction works.

9436LO 1 Your comments are noted. We would complete our works atthe earliest opportunity.

N

Construction site design and layout

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction site design and layout

Table 12.5.9 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction site design and layout


12.5.31 Support construction site layout, included:

- l ine of the river wall is not changedtemporarily or permanently

- undertaking not to use any part ofCremorne Gardens.

9260, LR9114 2 Your support is noted and welcomed.


23/63



Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout

Table 12.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout


12.5.32 More information is required on constructiondesign, including a more detailedspecification for the proposed works

8402 1 We consider that we have undertaken a thorough andcomprehensive consultation exercise. As part of this, wecarefully considered the information we made available atour phase two consultation to ensure that consultees hadsufficient information to respond to the consultation. We set

out the construction site layouts in our site informationpapersand the figures presented in the PEIR. Our Book ofPlansalso depicts detailed aspects of the construction siteincluding elevations and sections. We are confidenttherefore that the information we have provided is sufficient.

The detail of the construction layout would be developed bythe contractor, and may differ from those shown in theconsultation material provided that any environmentaleffects are managed and that the main constructionactivities are located within the site boundary included in ourDCO application.

N

12.5.33 No guarantee that the eventual constructionsite layout will reflect the layout in the site

information papers.

9285LO 1 N

12.5.34 Clarification as to whether to 'push in place'piling or 'hush' piling will be used.

RBKC 1 Our draft CoCPsets out that selection of the piling methodwould follow best practice in order to limit noise andvibration to acceptable levels such as pressing or vibro pilingrather than impact/percussive piling.

N

Suggestions for construction site design and layout

Table 12.5.11 Suggestions for construction site design and layout

Ref Suggestions for construction site layout Respondent ID No. Our response

12.5.35 Relocate piling rig towards the undevelopedside of the site (away from Chelsea Wharf).

9285LO 1 The site layouts are indicative only, and the contractor mayarrange the site in a different way, depending on the chosenconstruction methods, provided that any environmentaleffects are appropriately managed. The piling rig would needto move about the site during the construction period inorder to install piles in different locations.

N

12.5.36 Replace the rusty wire gates at both theentrance and exit with solid wooden gates.This should help to reduce the noise and

dust from the site provided the gates are tallones.

LR13496LO 1 As part of our environmental impact assessment we areundertaking an assessment of the likely significant effects ofnoise and dust. We will consider whether solid gates would

be required as part of the mitigation.Our Environmental statementwill provide a full assessmentof the likely significant air quali ty and noise effects duringconstruction. As part of the assessment we will identifymitigation to reduce our effects and this may includeproviding solid gates at the entrances to the Council depot ifit is appropriate.

C


24/63



Historic environment

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment

Table 12.5.12 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the historic environment during construction

Ref Supportive and general comments Respondent ID No. Our response

12.5.37 Construction activities will have limited/ noeffect on the conservation area.

RBKC 1 Your support is noted and welcomed.

12.5.38 Construction activities will have limited/ no

effect on listed building(s).

RBKC 1

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment

Table 12.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during construction


12.5.39 Effect of construction activities on adjacent/nearby conservation area.

8612 1 Our proposal for this site includes works to and within thesetting of the Lots Road Pumping Station which is a Grade IIlisted building and the site is also adjacent to the ThamesConservation Area. In developing our design proposals forthe site we have considered the historic context anddeveloped a proposal that complements the listed buildingand respects the industrial nature of the site.

We are undertaking a historic environment assessment aspart of our environmental impact assessmentthat will

identify any potential significant effects of our proposedconstruction activities and any mitigation required to addresssuch effects.

Our draft CoCP(provided at phase two consultation)identifies that works to or in the vicinity of listed buildingswould be undertaken in accordance with all requiredconsents and licences and that protection measures wouldbe put in place at the start of the works. We would alsonotify English Heritage and the local planning authority priorto undertaking works.

N

12.5.40 Effect of construction activities on listedbuilding(s) or structure(s).

8612 1 N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment

12.5.41 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address to address the effects on the historic environment

Table 12.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction


12.5.42 More information is needed on mitigation. EH 1 An assessment of the likely significant effects on the historicenvironment is being completed as part of our environmentalimpact assessment. We are consulting with English Heritageas part of this process. The findings of the assessment,together with any recommendations for mitigation, will beavailable as part of the Environmental statementthat will be

N


25/63




submitted with our DCO application.

Additionally, our draft CoCP(provided at phase twoconsultation) sets out a range of measures to safeguard thehistoric environment during construction. Such measuresinclude confirmation that works close to listed buildingswould be undertaken in accordance with all requirements setout in the DCO and that protection measures, as required,would be put in place at the start of the works. We would

also notify English Heritage and the RBKC prior toundertaking works and would continue to engage with themclosely on the planning of the works.

12.5.43 The location of structures will require listedbuilding consent and should not harm theinterior of the listed building.

RBKC 1 Your comment is noted. Our draft CoCP(provided at phasetwo consultation) sets out a range of measures to safeguardthe historic environment during construction. Such measuresinclude confirmation that works close to listed buildingswould be undertaken in accordance with all requirements setout in the DCO and that protection measures, as required,would be put in place at the start of the works. We wouldalso notify English Heritage and the RBKC prior toundertaking works and would continue to engage with themclosely on the planning of the works.

We expect to submit details of the equipment to be locatedin the Grade II Lots Road Pumping Station as part of therequirements (condition) of our DCO. Although we do notyet know the process for dealing with DCO requirements wewould expect to consult with the RBKC and English Heritageto ensure they are satisfied with the works beingundertaken.

N

Land quality and contamination

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to land quality and contamination

12.5.44 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to land quality and contamination during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination

Table 12.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination during construction


12.5.45 There is potential for contamination withinthe site boundary

8402 1 As set out in the PEIR(volume 15, section 8) baselineconditions at the site have been assessed through theanalysis of available desk-based data, a site walkover andpreliminary intrusive ground investigations. The PEIRhasidentified that there would not be significant adverse effectson land quality during construction. Comments about theprevious use of the site and the potential for contaminationwould be taken into account in developing a methodology forfurther ground investigations that would be agreed inadvance with the RBKC and the Environment Agency. If

N


26/63




appropriate, further ground investigations would beundertaken prior to construction to identify any sources ofcontamination. Further details will be provided in theEnvironmental statementthat will be submitted with ourDCO application.

Our draft CoCPsets out how any identified contaminationwould be addressed during construction, in agreement withthe regulator to remediate contamination and avoid

exposure of sensitive environmental receptors to it. Anyremediation works on site would be undertaken to therelevant standards and in agreements with the RBKC and/orthe Environment Agency as relevant.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination

12.5.46 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination

Table 12.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination during construction


12.5.47 Mitigation proposed to address land qualityand contamination issues is inadequate/insufficient.

8402 1 Our draft CoCPsets out a series of objectives andmeasures to be applied throughout the construction periodto:

a. set out the standards and procedures for managingand mitigating the impact of site activities during theconstruction of the Thames Tunnel

b. maintain satisfactory levels of environmental protectionc. limit disturbance from construction activities and to

assure all stakeholders that all construction impactswould be managed appropriately.

The land quality (9); air quality (7); water resources (8); andwaste management and resource use (10) sections of thedraft CoCPoutline the legislation, policy and measures towhich the contractor undertaking the work would be requiredto work.

The approaches and measures outlined in the draft CoCPwould ensure that contamination is not a risk to humanhealth during construction, both to those undertaking thework and also to local residents.

Section 4 of the draft CoCPoutlines general site operations,including the avoidance and response to pollution incidents.

The Environmental statementthat will be submitted as partof our DCO application will assess the proposals set out inour CoCP. Our contractor would be required to comply withthose measures.

N


27/63


28/63


29/63




- minimise the impacts as much as possible

- effect of vibration on structural integrity ofChelsea Wharf.

applied. The measures would be agreed with local authorityenvironmental health officers. Additionally we wouldimplement best practice measures to minimise noise andvibration from plant and works including the selection ofappropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment, anduse of enclosures to provide acoustic screens. Full details ofthe measures that would be adopted for the construction willbe set out in the CoCPsubmitted with our DCO application.

Our PEIR(volume 15, section 9) sets out our preliminaryqualitative assessment of noise and vibration fromconstruction site activities, noise from construction traffic onroads outside the site and noise and vibration from operationof the site. The proposals set out in our draft CoCPareincluded in the assessment. The PEIRassessment usedDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)London noise maps. The residential properties selected forthe noise and vibration assessment are identified in of ourPEIR(Volume 15) at Table 9.4.1. These include ChelseaWharf, including the offices at that location and wereselected as they are representative of the range of noiseclimates where sensitive receptors are situated around thesite. Our preliminary assessment does not identify any likelysignificant vibration effects at this property.

The Environmental statementthat will be submitted with ourDCO application will include an assessment of noise andvibration that would be completed in line with themethodology that is compliant with BS5228, BS6472 andS7385 and has been agreed with the RBKC. If significantnoise effects are identified at a site, we would set outappropriate mitigation measures to provide appropriateattenuation.

12.5.65 More information is needed on noise andvibration effects.

LR13496LO 1 We consider that we have undertaken a thorough andcomprehensive consultation exercise. We carefullyconsidered the information we made available at our phasetwo consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficientinformation to respond to the consultation. This included ourPEIR(volume 15, section 9) which sets out our initialassessment of noise and airborne and ground-borne

vibration from construction site activities, noise fromconstruction traffic on roads outside the site and noise andvibration from operation of the site, together with theassumptions that reflect the proposals in our draft CoCP.The PEIRassessment used Defra's London noise maps.The Environmental statementthat will be submitted with ourDCO application will include a noise and vibration sectionthat will be completed in line with the methodology that iscompliant with BS5228, BS6472 and BS7385 and has beenagreed with RBKC. Our DCO application will also include a

N


30/63




CoCPthat will set out measures that must be implementedby our contractor during the works to address the potentialeffects of noise and vibration. We are confident thereforethat the information we have provided is sufficient.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration

12.5.66 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on noise and vibration

Table 12.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction


12.5.67 More information is needed on noise andvibration mitigation, including specificmeasures to minimise noise, vibration anddust/pollution at this site which is so close toresidential and business premises.

9436LO, LR13496LO 2 Our PEIR(volume15, section 9) sets out our initialqualitative assessment of noise and vibration fromconstruction site activities, noise from construction traffic onroads outside the site and noise and vibration fromoperation of the site. The proposals set out in our draftCoCPare included in the assessment. The PEIRassessment used Defra's London noise maps.

The Environmental statementthat will be submitted with ourDCO application will include a full assessment of noise andvibration that will be completed in line with the methodologythat is compliant with BS5228, BS6472 and BS7385 and

has been agreed with RBKC. If significant noise and/orvibration effects are identified at a site, we would set outappropriate mitigation measures to provide appropriateattenuation.

Our draft CoCPsets out a range of measures that would beadopted by our contractor, to minimise noise and vibrationfrom plant and works including the selection of appropriateplant and equipment, siting of equipment, and use ofenclosures to provide acoustic screens. Specific measuressuch as acoustic suppression systems, operation ofequipment in the mode that minimises noise and shuttingdown equipment when not in use are also identified in ourdraft CoCP. Our contractor would be required to comply withthe requirements of the CoCP. The draft CoCPalso statesthat our contractor would be required to apply for Section 61

consents (s.61) under the Control of Pollution Act 1974.These would set out specific working methods and themeasures to minimise noise and vibration as well as anyappropriate monitoring measures to be agreed with localauthority environmental health officers.

C

12.5.68 Mitigation proposed to address noise andvibration issues is inadequate/insufficient.

8402 1 C

12.5.69 Other noise and vibration mitigationsuggestions:

- appropriate structural assessmentsshould be undertaken prior to the

LR13496LO 1 Our Settlement project information paperprovidesinformation on our approach to controlling and limiting theground movement, which can cause settlement, associatedwith construction of the tunnel. It is acknowledged thatconstruction of the tunnel and shaft would cause some small

C


31/63




adoption of these proposals to ensurethat the Chelsea Wharf buildings are notcompromised

- the listed Pumping Station needs someexternal restoration work which shouldinclude replacing the rusty wire gates atboth the entrance and exit with solidwooden gates. This should help to

reduce the noise and dust from the siteprovided the gates are tall ones

- other serious noise abatement measureswill have to be stipulated if Lots Roadresidents opposite are to have anyquality of life affected for three years.

movements in the ground, the level of which would dependon a range of factors including size and depth ofconstruction works as well as existing ground conditions.

We are assessing the potential likely significant effects ofground movement in advance of the works and, wherenecessary, would carry out protective measures. We wouldalso monitor actual ground movement during and after thetunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted.

We would also carry out a defects survey on buildingslocated over, or close to, our tunnels and worksites wherewe consider this to be required. The method used forassessing settlement is similar to that used for the ChannelTunnel Rail Link, the Jubilee Line Extension, and Crossrail.

We will consider whether improvements are required to thegates as part of our design development.

Details of the noise control measures referenced in our siteinformation paper at phase two consultation are set out inour draft CoCP. This identifies a range of measures that ourcontractor would be required to implement duringconstruction, such as the selection of appropriate plant andequipment, siting of equipment, and use of enclosures toprovide acoustic screens. Our contractor would also berequired to gain prior approval to the construction work from

RBKC through a Section 61 application under the Control ofPollution Act that would set out specific working methodsand the measures to minimise noise and vibration as well asany appropriate monitoring measures. The measures wouldbe agreed with local authority environmental health officers.

Full details of the measures that will be adopted for theconstruction will be set out in the CoCPsubmitted with ourDCO application.

Open space and recreation

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to open space and recreation

12.5.70 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to open space and recreation during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation

Table 12.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation issues during construction


12.5.71 Temporary loss or relocation of recreationalriver activities.

RBKC 1 Our works would not require the relocation of the CremorneRiverside Activity Centre and it could continue to operatefrom its current location for the duration of our works. OurPEIR(volume 15, section 10) provides a preliminaryassessment of the effects of the proposed development onthe amenity of the Centre. We believe that given the breadthof the river at this point users are likely to be able to avoid

N

C Wh f D


32/63




use of the construction works area by diverting their routesand as such effects are not likely to be significant.

12.5.72 Proximity of preferred site to an open space,with associated effects on its setting andrecreational value.

8612 1 The proximity of the site to Cremorne Gardens is noted,although the site is set at a distance and separated by otherproperties. No alternation to or intervention into the Gardensis proposed.

N

12.5.73 Other open space and recreation issue:avoid disruption of events.

8612 1 N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation

12.5.74 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation

12.5.75 No objections, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation during construction.

Planning and development

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to planning and development

Table 12.5.22 Supportive and neutral comments relation to planning and development during construction


12.5.76 Use of the safeguarded wharf is consideredto be London Plan policy compliant as longas the majority of construction materials are

transported by barge.

GLA, RBKC 2 Where practical and cost-effective we would transport materials bybarge. We consider that the relatively low volumes of road traffic, whichwould be considerably less than the number of HGV movements

currently consented from the site, would not cause significant effects.We are currently considering our transport strategy and whether there isthe opportunity to use the wharf to transport materials from the siteduring construction works. Our contractor would consider whether thereare any opportunities for further use of river transport as part of thescheme.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development

Table 12.5.23 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development during construction


12.5.77 Proposal is contrary to adopted planningpolicy; the loss, albeit temporary, of thisimportant operation will be contrary tosafeguarded wharves policy at local andregional levels and will require full

justification.

9484LO 1 The site is allocated as a waste management site and is asafeguarded wharf. While the use of this site duringconstruction of the tunnel would prevent these uses beingavailable in the short term, the permanent layout and designof the site would allow these uses to be reinstated. We arecurrently considering our transport strategy and whetherthere is the opportunity to use the wharf to transportmaterials from the site during construction works. This wouldutilise the safeguarded wharf.

We would note that the primary policy consideration for theThames Tunnel project will be the National Policy Statementfor Waste Water which was designated by parliament on 26March 2012.

C

12.5.78 Compatibility with existing planningpermission adjacent to/in the vicinity of thesite.

8971 1 N

12.5.79 Cumulative effects of other developments,including redevelopment of the Lots RoadPower Station site.

7782, 8704 2 C

12 C Wh f D t


33/63




We understand that the former power station scheme maybe partly occupied during the construction works. Ourenvironmental impact assessment will consider thecumulative effects of the works on strategic developments into the local area. The developments to be taken into accounthave been discussed with RBKC. Those assessments willbe reported in our Environmental statementand in the CoCPto be submitted with our DCO application.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development

12.5.80 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development

Table 12.5.24 Objections, issues and concerns for in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development during construction


12.5.81 Integration with planned developments -specifically the Lots Road Power Stationredevelopment.

GLA 1 The commencement of the construction of the Lots RoadPower Station redevelopment is currently uncertain but it isanticipated that the project would be delivered before ourconstruction works start on site. We will continue to discussthe proposals with Hutchinson Whampoa Ltd to mitigate anypotential effects our works may have on this development inthe future.

N

Socio-economic

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects

Table 12.5.25 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to socio-economic effects during construction

Ref Supportive and general comments Respondent ID No. Our response

12.5.82 The preferred site is the least disruptiveoption for the local community.

9078 1 Your support is noted and welcomed.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects

Table 12.5.26 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during construction


12.5.83 It is not clear what the scale of socio-

economic effects will be; the assessment todate is very vague.

9484LO 1 Our PEIR(volume 15, section 10) provides a preliminary

assessment of the likely significant socio-economic effectsof the scheme building on the preliminary findings of a rangeof topics including noise and vibration, air quality (includingdust emissions) and odour, and transport, based on amethodology that has been agreed with RBKC. We areundertaking an environmental impact assessment, which willinclude a comprehensive assessment of the likelysignificanteffects arising from the proposals. The findings ofthe assessment, together with any recommendations formitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental

N

12 C Wh f D t


34/63




statementthat will be submitted with our DCO appli cation.

12.5.84 Detrimental effect on business operationsincluding the waste transfer station/wharf.

GLA, 8704 2 We acknowledge that the works would have a temporaryeffect upon the Council depot during construction, but wewould minimise this through the timing, alternativearrangements for which we are in on-going discussions withthe landowner and operator. The only other site identified aspotentially suitable, adjacent in the foreshore, would alsohave an effect upon the site's operation.

We do not believe that there would be any other effects onbusiness operations in the local area.

N

12.5.85 Effect on the local economy andemployment.

LR13496LO 1 N

12.5.86 Effect on property prices. 9436LO, 9186 2 Landowners may have a statutory entitlement to claimcompensation for the diminution of the value of theirproperty due to the construction of the tu

Supp Report on P2 Consultation - Chapter 12 Cremorne Wharf Depot

Documents