Supp Report on P2 Consultation - Chapter 7 Putney Bridge Foreshore

7/31/2019 Supp Report on P2 Consultation - Chapter 7 Putney Bridge Foreshore

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/supp-report-on-p2-consultation-chapter-7-putney-bridge-foreshore 1/89

110-RG-PNC-00000-000784 | May 2012

Supplementary reporton phase twoconsultation

Chapter 7 – Putney Bridge Foreshore



Thames Tunnel

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

List of contents

Page number

7 Putney Bridge Foreshore ............................................................................. 7-1 7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Number of respondents ........................................................................ 7-1 7.3 Site selection ........................................................................................ 7-2 7.4 Alternative sites .................................................................................... 7-9 7.5 Management of construction works .................................................... 7-11 7.6 Permanent design and appearance .................................................... 7-52 7.7 Management of operational effects .................................................... 7-64 7.8 Our view of the way forward ............................................................... 7-82



List of tables

Page numberTable 7.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on Putney Bridge

Foreshore ........................................................................................... 7-1 Table 7.3.1 Views on whether Putney Bridge Foreshore should be our

preferred site (Q2) .............................................................................. 7-2 Table 7.3.2 Supportive and neutral comments feedback comments in relation

to selection of our preferred site ......................................................... 7-3

Table 7.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection of ourpreferred site ...................................................................................... 7-5

Table 7.3.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites .......... 7-9 Table 7.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to Putney Bridge Foreshore .................... 7-9 Table 7.4.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the

availability and identification of alternative sites ............................... 7-11 Table 7.4.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the availability and

identification of alternative sites ........................................................ 7-11 Table 7.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the

site information paper? (Q4a) ........................................................... 7-12 Table 7.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the

key issues? (Q4b) 7 12



Table 7.5.13 Suggestions for construction site design and layout ........................ 7-21 Table 7.5.14 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the

historic environment during construction .......................................... 7-22 Table 7.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic

environment during construction ....................................................... 7-22 Table 7.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures

proposed to address the effects on the historic environmentduring construction ........................................................................... 7-24

Table 7.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality andcontamination during construction .................................................... 7-25

Table 7.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to lighting duringconstruction ...................................................................................... 7-25

Table 7.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measuresproposed to address the effects of lighting during construction ........ 7-26

Table 7.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the naturalenvironment (aquatic) during construction ........................................ 7-27

Table 7.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measuresproposed to address the effects on the natural environment(aquatic) during construction ............................................................ 7-28

Table 7.5.22 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to thenatural environment (terrestrial) during construction ........................ 7-28



Table 7.5.32 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures andutilities during construction ............................................................... 7-41

Table 7.5.33 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measuresproposed to address the effects on structures and utilitiesduring construction ........................................................................... 7-42

Table 7.5.34 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape andvisual effects during construction ...................................................... 7-43

Table 7.5.35 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures

proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual duringconstruction ...................................................................................... 7-44

Table 7.5.36 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transportand access during construction ........................................................ 7-44

Table 7.5.37 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport andaccess during construction ............................................................... 7-45

Table 7.5.38 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measuresproposed to address the effects of transport and access duringconstruction ...................................................................................... 7-48

Table 7.5.39 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and floodrisk during construction ..................................................................... 7-51

Table 7.5.40 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposedto address the effects on water and flood risk during construction ... 7-52

Table 7 6 1 Do o agree that e ha e identified the right iss es that ha e



Table 7.7.7 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to airquality and odour during operation ................................................... 7-66

Table 7.7.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality andodour during operation ..................................................................... 7-67

Table 7.7.9 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to themeasures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odourduring operation ................................................................................ 7-68


proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour duringoperation........................................................................................... 7-69

Table 7.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historicenvironment issues during operation ................................................ 7-69

Table 7.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measuresproposed to address the effects on the historic environment duringoperation........................................................................................... 7-70

Table 7.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality andcontamination during operation ........................................................ 7-71

Table 7.7.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the naturalenvironment (aquatic) during operation ............................................ 7-71

Table 7.7.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measuresproposed to address the effects on the natural environment

( ti ) d i ti 7 72



Table 7.7.25 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures andutilities during operation .................................................................... 7-77

Table 7.7.26 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measuresproposed to address the effects on structures and utilities duringoperation........................................................................................... 7-77

Table 7.7.27 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape andvisual effects during operation .......................................................... 7-78


proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual duringoperation........................................................................................... 7-78 Table 7.7.29 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to

transport and access during operation ............................................. 7-79 Table 7.7.30 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and

access during operation ................................................................... 7-79 Table 7.7.31 Objections, issues and concerns to address the effects of

transport and access during operation ............................................. 7-80 Table 7.7.32 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood

risk during operation ......................................................................... 7-80 Table 7.7.33 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures

proposed to address the effects on water and flood riskduring operation ................................................................................ 7-81



7 Putney Bridge Foreshore

Supplementary report on phase two consultation 7-1


7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 This chapter covers the feedback comments received during phase two consultation regarding our preferred site Putney Bridge Foreshore. This site would be used to connect the existinglocal combined sewer overflow (CSO), known as the Putney Bridge CSO, to the main tunnel. Putney Bridge Foreshore was also our preferred site to intercept the Putney Bridge CSO atphase one consultation. In response to stakeholder engagement, phase one consultation responses and scheme development, the extent and construction layout of the site was altered atphase two consultation to minimise the impact on the local community and the environment. For further information regarding the proposals for this site at phase two consultation, refer to

the Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper .

Structure of this chapter

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

section 7.2 – Number of respondents

section 7.3 – Site selection

section 7.4 – Alternative sites

section 7.5 – Management of construction works

section 7.6 – Permanent design and appearance

section 7.7 – Management of operational effects

section 7.8 – Our view of the way forward.

1.1.1 In sections 7.3 to 7.7 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.

7.2 Number of respondents

7.2.1 A total of 171 respondents provided comments on Putney Bridge Foreshore, of which ten were received after the close of phase two consultation. Table 7.2.1 sets out the different groupswho provided feedback for this site.

Table 7.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on Putney Bridge Foreshore

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

- London Borough of Wandsworth

(LBW)

3 respondents 161 respondents 0 petitions

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

1Mitigation here refers to a wide range of measures set out in our phase two consultation proposals including for example, the Air management plan and other documents as well as those mitigation measures set out in the PEIR .





7.3 Site selection

7.3.1 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 a methodologythat 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 paper such as the engineering requirements for the sizeof construction sites.

7.3.2 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.

7.3.3 In this section, we set out the feedback comments received in relation to the selection of Putney Bridge Foreshore as our preferred site, together with our responses. Our responsesprovide relevant 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 inrelation to our preferred site, such as the preparation of our Preliminary environmental information report (PEIR ). As part of the project design development process, we continue to assesshow the effects arising from the proposed development can be addressed. The output of our assessment up to phase two consultation is contained in appendix D of the Design development report and our PEIR (volume 10).

7.3.4 Where respondents commented on matters in relation to management of construction works, permanent design and appearance or the management of operational effects at PutneyBridge Foreshore, these comments are reported in sections 7.5 to 7.7.

Number of respondents

7.3.5 During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked to comment on the decision to select Putney Bridge Foreshore as our preferred site to intercept the Putney Bridge CSO (seequestion 2 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in Appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation ). Table 7.3.1 sets out details of the different groups whoresponded and were asked to select ‘supportive’, ‘opposed/concerned’ or ‘don’t know/unsure’. Tables 7.3.2 and 7.3.3 then detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. Itshould be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments selected ‘supportive’, ‘opposed/concerned’ or ‘don’t know/unsure’ .

Table 7.3.1 Views on whether Putney Bridge Foreshore should be our preferred site (Q2)

Respondent type Number of respondents

Total Supportive Opposed/concerned Don’t know/unsure

Statutory consultees 1 1

- EA

Local authorities 0

Landowners 2 1 1

Community consultees 108 31 62 15Petitions 0

Total 111 32 64 15





Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to our preferred site

Table 7.3.2 Supportive and neutral comments feedback comments in relation to selection of our preferred site

Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID No. Our response

7.3.6 Support the use of the preferred site. GLA, 7289, 7921, LR9447 4 Your support is noted and welcomed.

7.3.7 Support the identification of a new preferredsite since phase one consultation/thepreferred site is more suitable than the siteput forward at phase one.

7359 1

7.3.8 The preferred site is more suitable than anyalternative site because:

- it will have the least impact onsurrounding residents and businesses

- it is better than having works east ofPutney Bridge which would disturb localbusinesses, including restaurants andbars

- disruption would be much less

- connections are better west of the bridge

- there is better road access

- the site is sufficiently far from residents ofPutney Wharf, St Mary’s church or the

river wall downstream of Putney Bridge- sites downstream of Putney Bridge are

more exposed and have more difficultworks access.

9374LO, 7176, 7223, 8289, 8559 5

7.3.9 The preferred site is more suitable than anyof the shortlisted sites identified at phaseone consultation.

GLA 1

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

9042 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.

7.3.11 Agree that Putney Bridge CSO needs to beintercepted, and that the Putney BridgeForeshore site is a suitable location fromwhich to do so.

8098, LR9276 2 Noted.

7.3.12 Use of the site would have limited effects onthe local area and community.

7176, 7251 2 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.

7.3.13 Support for changes to the extent of thepreferred site since phase one consultation,in particular the changes that ensure thatthe listed bridge and slipway are protectedand impacts on residents of KenilworthCourt reduced.

7275, 7921, 8219, 8535, 8587, 8986,9102, 9144, LR9236

9 Noted.






7.3.14 Qualified support for the preferred siteincluded:

- the site being a CSO interception siteonly

EH, PLA, 8224, 8546, 9159, 9253 6 Putney Bridge Foreshore will only be used as a CSO interception site.

- inconvenience and disturbance to thepublic including in relation to use of theRiver Thames being minimised during

and after construction

Since selecting Putney Bridge Foreshore as our preferred site, we havebegun assessing the likely significant effects arising from our proposals.Our draft Code of construction practice (CoCP ) sets out a range of

measures that would be adopted to minimise the likely significant effectsof construction works including dust, noise and vibration. The proposedmeasures contained in the draft CoCP are in line with best practiceguidelines. Details will be set out in the CoCP that we will submit withour DCO application.

- appropriate mitigation being undertaken Since selecting Putney Bridge Foreshore 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 likely significant adverseeffects that are identified. An Environmental statement, which recordsthe findings of the environmental impact assessment, will accompanyour DCO application. The initial environmental assessment work thathas been carried out on the project is contained within the PEIR (volume10), which is available on our website. As part of the phase twoconsultation, we have also sought feedback on the potential likely

significant effects arising from our proposals and how the effects will bemitigated. Where possible, we will take feedback comments into accountas we develop our proposals.

- further work being undertaken onconstruction site design and workingmethods

Prior to submitting our DCO application, we will continue to refine theconstruction site design and working methods.

- English Heritage accepts the use of thissite and the associated impacts on thehistoric environment given the widerpublic good the Thames Tunnel projectcan offer

English Heritage's comments are noted and we welcome their supportfor this site. As English Heritage is aware, we are undertaking a historicenvironment assessment, which will assess likely significant effects onthe setting of adjacent heritage assets, as part of our environmentalimpact assessment. This will identify any likely significant effects duringconstruction and any mitigation required to address adverse effects. Weconsider that it will be possible to appropriately mitigate any adverseeffects on surrounding heritage assets and in particular the Grade II

listed Putney Bridge.- the PLA has no in principle objection in

terms of navigational safety Your comment is noted.

- Thames Water must minimise effects onrecreational river users Refer to paragraph 7.5.130 for our response this feedback comment.

- require reassurance regarding pointsraised by Hurlingham Yacht Club (HYC)in December 2011.

The points raised by HYC at meetings in December 2011 and January2012 have been incorporated into HYC’s feedback to phase twoconsultation. We are confident that all points raised have beenaddressed in sections 7.5 to 7.7 of this chapter.





Objections, issues and concerns in relation to our preferred site

Table 7.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection of our preferred site

Ref Comments Respondent ID No. Our response

7.3.15 Object to the use of this preferred site. Inparticular, the Environment Agency isgenerally opposed in principle to the use ofany foreshore sites along the ThamesTideway as this is likely to lead to a number

of detrimental effects to flood riskmanagement, biodiversity and recreation.However, we recognise the environmentalbenefits the Thames Tunnel project willdeliver and there is a need to develop asnear to the river as possible.

EA, 7501, 7815, 8396, 8587, 8869, 8998,9001, 9002, 9072, 9266, 9399, LR13383

12 The sites that we consulted on at phase two consultation have beenidentified through an extensive site selection process (see our Site selection methodology paper on our website). We consulted on andagreed the methodology with key stakeholders including potentiallydirectly affected local authorities and utilised a multidisciplinary

approach to assess potential CSO sites against engineering, planning,environmental, property and community considerations.

We recognise that, given the locations where we are seeking toconstruct and operate the tunnel, many of the shortlisted sites areconstrained. However, based on our assessment we consider that, onbalance, Putney Bridge Foreshore is the most suitable site. This isbecause it would not have a direct effect on the setting of the Grade II*listed St Mary’s Church, it would have better vehicular access than a siteon the eastern side of Putney Bridge and would avoid a pedestrian area.It should be recognised that a foreshore site would always be requiredgiven the location of the Putney Bridge CSO, which needs to beintercepted.

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

7.3.16 Disagree with the selection of this preferredsite.

8195 1

7.3.17 The preferred site is unsuitable because: - it is a family friendly environment - the foreshore and towpath are used very

frequently for recreation - the permanent works will impinge upon

the river - development will deter people from using

the area

7777, 7832, 8998, 9002 4

7.3.18 Should use/consider an alternative site. 7993, 8672, 9001, 9002, LR13383 5

7.3.19 Alternative sites have not been properlyconsidered.

8402 1

7.3.20 Foreshore, adjacent to Putney Bridge andSt Mary’s Church is more suitable.

9399, 9486 2 Our re-assessment of sites prior to phase two consultation and ourreview of phase two consultation comments does not support the use ofForeshore, adjacent to Putney Bridge and St Mary’s Church as our preferred site. This site is less suitable than our preferred site becausethe site has poor access, would be adjacent to the Grade II* listed StMary’s Church, The Boathouse public house and the riverside walkway ,and access would have to go through this area. The site would alsohave a greater impact upon the residential and commercial properties at

Putney Wharf since residents would be in closer proximity to the worksand would not benefit from the highway separation that exists betweensites west of Putney Bridge and the adjacent residents.

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

7.3.21 Query why shortlisted sites have not beenidentified.

EH, GLA 2 The shortlisted sites were listed in the Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper. appendix D of the Phase two scheme development report sets out all the sites assessed as part of the site selection processincluding the shortlisted sites.






7.3.22 The site selection methodology isincorrect/flawed/unjustified.

7449 1 The sites on which we have consulted were identified through anextensive site selection process as set out in the Site selection methodology paper that 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 weretaken into account in the site selection process.

7.3.23 Site selection should use/prioritisebrownfield sites.

8792, 9281 2 Whether a site is brownfield or greenfield/open space was taken intoaccount along with other considerations as set out in the Site selection methodology paper .

7.3.24 Site selection should avoid greenfield sitesand open space.

7832, 9055, 9281 3

7.3.25 Site selection should not use sites within theRiver Thames foreshore

EA, 8892, 9068, 9072 4 CSOs need to be intercepted along the line of the existing sewer thatflows into the River Thames. CSO interception sites need to be as closeto the line of the sewer as practicable so there are few options and amore localised approach is required. In the case of the Putney BridgeCSO, the overflow point is located under Putney Bridge so it is notpossible to avoid the foreshore of the River Thames, the riverside or thebuilt-up area. There are also no vacant sites near the Putney BridgeCSO.

7.3.26 Site selection should avoid sites on theriverside.

8869 1

7.3.27 Site selection should prioritise use of vacantsites.

7305 1

7.3.28 Site selection should avoid sites inresidential and/or densely populated areas.

7205, 8640 2

7.3.29 Selection of this preferred site has been

poorly justified/inadequately explained.

8998 1 We believe that our assessments, which have been carried out in

accordance with the Site selection methodology paper , arecomprehensively explained in appendix D of the Phase two scheme development report .7.3.30 Reasons for selecting this preferred site are

flawed/questionable.9399 1

7.3.31 The cost of using the site is too high/notcost-effective.

8402 1 Cost is one of the considerations that informs site assessments, but it isnot an overriding factor that outweighs all other engineering, planning,environmental, community, property and wider economic considerations.

7.3.32 The scale of effects on the local area andcommunity resulting from the selection ofthis site is unacceptable/has not beenproperly considered.

7815, 8402, 8662, 8895, 9068, 9191 6 Our site selection process has had regard to possible likely significanteffects on the local area and community, and the environmental impactassessment process will undertake further assessment and recommendany necessary mitigation measures.

The environment and community assessments undertaken as part ofsite selection considered the number and nature of sensitive receptorsas well as possible likely significant effects from traffic and construction

works including noise, air quality and visual impact. We also consideredlikely significant effects on employment uses and possible conflict withplanning policy that seeks to protect local amenity. Accordingly, weconsider that the scale of possible likely significant effects on the localarea and community has been adequately considered.

For further details on the resul ts of the site selection process, refer toappendix D of the Phase two scheme development report .

7.3.33 Disagree with/not commenting on siteselection due to wider objections to theproposed solution and/or the need for the

8083, 8195, 8545, 8662, 9351 5 Refer to paragraph 2.2.32 for our response to feedback commentsrelated to need and solution.

In relation to interception of the Putney Bridge CSO, the Needs report






project. Specifically, the Putney Bridge CSOproduces an insignificant amount ofpollution compared to central and eastLondon, and compared to other CSOscovered by the project. The cost anddisruption from connecting the PutneyBridge CSO to the tunnel is therefore out ofall proportion to any improvement in river

quality.

identifies the Putney Bridge CSO as being within the category of CSOswhich most urgently need to be addressed. Table 4.2 provides furtherdetails. Based on the Environment Agency's assessment, we thereforeneed to intercept this CSO.

7.3.34 Site selection should avoid sites adjacent toor containing heritage assets; ThamesWater has downplayed the significance ofthe historic environment in this location.

EH, 8869 2 The location of CSO sites is constrained by the location of the existingcombined sewers, because the interception chambers have to be builton the existing sewers. The search area for the CSO sites is thereforelocalised around the vicinity of the existing sewer. As set out in the Site selection methodology paper , sites have not been identified that wouldbe located within London's World Heritage Sites (WHS); this is inrecognition of the historic importance of these sites. Given that we had alimited search area to identify a suitable CSO site, we did not consider i tappropriate to exclude sites based on whether they included or wereadjacent to other designated heritage assets when compiling our longlistof sites. As part of the assessment the effect of our proposals of heritagedesignations was considered.

With regard to Putney Bridge Foreshore, we recognise that our preferredsite is located within the Putney Embankment Conservation Area andadjacent to the Grade II listed Putney Bridge. However, we consider thatit will be possible to mitigate any likely significant effects arising fromlocating our site in close proximity to heritage assets.

7.3.35 Do not support changes to the extent of thepreferred site since phase oneconsultation/do not support the specificlocation of the site.

7729LO, 7205, 7359, 7750, 8502, 8576,8774, 8825, 8944, 8945, 8982, 9262,9281, LR13383

14 At phase one consultation, our preferred site at Putney Bridge was westor upstream of Putney Bridge. The proposals we presented at phase twoconsultation also show the site west or upstream of Putney Bridge.

Specifically:

- it is too close to Putney Bridge, withassociated effects on traffic congestion

Putney Bridge CSO is located under Putney Bridge so the site needs tobe located close to Putney Bridge to enable the two branches of thePutney Bridge CSO to be intercepted. We tested various locations forthe drop shaft, which were different distances from Putney Bridge,having regard to environmental, planning, engineering, property andcommunity considerations as set out in the Site selection methodology paper . On balance, we consider the site we put forward at phase two

consultation is the most suitable.

- it should not be on the western side ofPutney Bridge, and certainly not furtherwest than previously proposed at phaseone consultation

Refer to paragraph 7.3.20 for our response to this feedback comment.

- the river wall immediately downstream ofPutney Bridge is weak and potentiallyunstable; any additional load by PutneyWharf would seriously damage the river

Our preferred site is located to the west of Putney Bridge. For furtherdetails on how we will address likely significant effects on structuresarising from our works, refer to table 7.5.32 for our response.






wall, underground car parks andresidential and church buildings

- the site is bigger than at phase oneconsultation The size of the site presented at Putney Bridge Foreshore at phase one

consultation is broadly the same as the site size presented at phase twoconsultation.

- the site is within the area of the River

Thames which is used by the sailing androwing communities

Recreational use of the River Thames was taken into account along with

other considerations as set out in the Site selection methodology paper .We are completing a navigational risk assessment to fully understandthe likely significant effects of the scheme and will continue to liaise withthe PLA and river users including local rowing clubs to developappropriate mitigation.

- should avoid use of Waterman's Green We are not proposing to use Waterman’s Green as part of the CSOconstruction site. A small permanent kiosk is proposed within the green.

- the promontory should be moved furtherwest - potentially adjacent to the pier This is not a site selection matter. However, we are continuing to

develop our design proposals for this site in light of feedback to phasetwo consultation. We will present our revised proposals for thepermanent design of this site as part of our targeted consultation.

- the site is located closer to residentialproperties, including Star and GarterMansions.

The CSO interception site is not located in front of the Star and Garter. Atemporary replacement slipway in proposed at this location. Since thereplacement slipway is mitigation for loss of the existing slipway during

construction, the location of the slipway has not been subject to the siteselection process.

7.3.36 Other concerns, issues and objectionscomments raised included:

- understood that possible alternative siteshave been sold by Thames Water forresidential development

LBW, 7993, 8402 3 The only sites that have been included on the final shortlist are locatedwithin the foreshore of the River Thames. Since we do not own theforeshore, we do not agree that there are alternative sites that could beused.

- the proposal is too risky We have a legal obligation under the Construction (Design andManagement) Regulations 2007 to avoid foreseeable risks and eliminatehazards that may give rise to risks and reduce risks from any remaininghazards. These regulations have informed our proposals at PutneyBridge Foreshore. We do not agree that our proposals are too risky.

- recognise design changes since phase

one consultation but still concerned. Your comments are noted and we are currently considering the design

for this site.

Shortlisted sites

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to shortlisted sites

7.3.37 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the shortlisted sites.





Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites

Table 7.3.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites

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

7.3.38 The shortlisted site 1, Foreshore, end ofBrewhouse Lane, is unsuitable for theproposed use(s) due to:

- effects local amenity - effects on the environment - duration of construction works.

7256 1 Based on our assessment, we consider that while the Foreshore, end ofBrewhouse Lane is potentially suitable as a CSO site is less suitablethan our preferred site. This is because this site would cause greateradverse effects on multiple adjacent sensitive receptors, including StMary's Church and Putney Wharf.

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

7.4 Alternative sites

7.4.1 During the phase two consultation, respondents were invited to suggest alternative sites that they thought should be used to intercept the Putney Bridge CSO instead of Putney BridgeForeshore (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 put forward aspossible alternatives:

Table 7.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to Putney Bridge Foreshore

Ref Alternative site suggestions Reasons Respondent ID No. Our response

The preferred site

7.4.2 South of the river. It is a ‘no brainer’. 7212 1 Our preferred site is on the south of the River Thames (see Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper and appendix D of the Phase

two scheme development report).Shortlisted sites

7.4.3 Foreshore, adjacent to PutneyBridge and St Mary’sChurch/further downstream ofPutney Bridge.

Should use brownfield sites, whichminimise disturbance to existingbusinesses. Considered that sitewould result in less residentialdisturbance (Putney Wharf would befurther away from the site incomparison to Kenilworth Court) andwould have less effect on recreationalriver users, not result in closure of theslipway by Waterman’s Green and would minimise damage to PutneyBridge piers. It would also allow thesafe use of full-sized barges,reducing need for road transport andwould enable use of Brewhouse Lanerather than Putney High Street(A219). It would be a cheaperalternative. Any permanent structureswould be more appropriate due toexisting modern structures including atall vent for the underground car parkat Putney Wharf.

7304, 7305,9068, 9069,9262, 7303,7306, 8760,8774, 8825,8914, 7028,7205, 7256,LR13383, 9399

16 We did identify and consider this site. It is a shortlisted site but weconsider our preferred site (Putney Bridge Foreshore) more suitable tointercept the Putney Bridge CSO because a site east of the bridge wouldcause greater adverse effects on the adjacent multiple sensitivereceptors, including St Mary’s Church, a Grade II* listed building, whichwould be impacted upon both in appearance and setting. Furthermore,disruption may affect users of the church, including the children’snursery group. The adjacent Putney Wharf development, thepedestrianised public open space and the Boathouse public housewould also experience severe disruption and construction relatedimpacts. The access is poor and would have to go through this area.

For further details on the results of the site selection process, refer to

appendix D of the Phase two scheme development report.






Other sites

7.4.4 Carnwath Road Riverside. Is considered more suitable becauseit is a disused brownfield site and hasan existing industrial wharf. The sitetherefore has better road and riveraccess. Overall, it is considered thesite would have less impact onneighbouring community andenvironment.

7302, 7750,7777, 7806,7832, 7950,7923, 8396

8 None of the suggested alternative sites are feasible. Sites have beenselected on the basis of needing to intercept existing CSOs. CSOs arein fixed locations and the site to in tercept the CSO needs to be on theline of, or in close proximity to, the sewer. Putney Bridge CSO is locatedunder Putney Bridge, so the CSO needs to be intercepted on the southside of the river.

Carnwath Road Riverside is too far away from the Putney Bridge CSOand therefore is not suitable as a CSO interception site. Sites west ofour preferred site are also too far away and therefore not consideredsuitable. Even if the CSO could be intercepted west of our preferred site,it is unlikely that the site would be acceptable due to the impact onrecreational users of the River Thames.

7.4.5 Sands End. It is a brownfield site. 7852 1

7.4.6 Barnes Common. The visual impact of the works,specifically the ventilation shaft,would be less on this site.

7777 1

7.4.7 Fulham Palace Gardens. Further from residential areas and thesite would be screened by trees onthe Fulham side of the River Thames.

8800 1

7.4.8 Site west of the ThaiRestaurant.

Further from residential areas and thesite would be screened by trees onthe Fulham side of the River Thames.

9144 1

7.4.9 Further upstream/west. Site would be further from residential

areas and businesses so would haveless impact. Lower Richmond Roadprovides better site access than southof Putney Bridge. It would not affectthe river taxi commuter service fromPutney Pier. Also, the river wallimmediately downstream of PutneyBridge is weak. Concerned thatconstruction traffic would damage theriver wall, underground car parks andresidential and church buildings.

7332, 7762,

7768, 8450

4

7.4.10 Beckton Sewage TreatmentWorks.

8458 1

7.4.11 Anywhere. 8869, 7205 2

7.4.12 Off the existing pier above thebridge.

Thames Water should use brownfieldsites, whether planning permissionhas been granted for other uses ornot.

7256 1 This site is not considered suitable because we need to use a site whichis closer to the Putney Bridge CSO; the CSO runs under Putney Bridgeand therefore the suggested site is further away than our preferred site.Furthermore, using the pier may affect this heritage asset deleteriously.

See paragraph 7.4.14 for a response to why a brownfield site is notsuitable to intercept the Putney Bridge CSO.

7.4.13 Adjoining disused gentleman'stoilet.

It has been closed for over a decadewith no economic or appropriate usefound.

9281, 9207 2 This area of land, known as Waterman's Green, which includes disusedtoilets, is too small for a CSO site. Our preferred site is adjacent to thisarea and a small permanent kiosk will be located there.






7.4.14 Brownfield site with good siteaccess/road access is lesscongested.

These sites should be reconsidered. 9001, 9002,9072

3 CSOs need to be intercepted along the line of the existing sewer thatflows into the River Thames. CSO sites need to be as close to the line ofthe sewer as practicable which means that there are few options andthat a more localised approach is required. In the case of the PutneyBridge CSO, the overflow point is located under Putney Bridge so it isnot possible to avoid this area or the foreshore of River Thames/theriverside. There are also no brownfield sites near the Putney BridgeCSO.

7.4.15 A site that will not impact somany residents.

8321LO 1

7.4.16 An area less utilised for somany activities.

9072 1

7.4.17 A less protected site. All foreshore and riverside sitesshould be protected fromdevelopment.

8892 1

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

Supportive and neutral feedback comments

Table 7.4.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites


7.4.19 No alternative site is available; ThamesWater have done their best to surveyalternative sites.

7404 1 Your support is welcomed and noted.

7.4.20 Unable to comment. 7256 1 The purpose of consultation is to explore as fully as possible what thosewith an interest in the project think about our proposals. We will haveregard to comments received from both technical and non-technicalconsultees.

Objections, issues and concerns

Table 7.4.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites

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

7.4.21 Not aware of the options. 7985 1 The shortlisted sites were listed in the Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper. appendix D of the Phase two scheme development report sets out all the sites assessed as part of the site selection processincluding the shortlisted sites.

7.5 Management of construction works

7.5.1 This section sets out feedback comments received during the phase two consultation in relation to the management of construction works at Putney Bridge Foreshore. This includes theidentification of site specific issues arising from construction activities and proposals to address the effects of these issues.

7.5.2 During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with Putney Bridge Foreshore duringconstruction and the ways to address 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 of question 4a and 4b asked respondents to select ‘agree’, ‘disagree’ or ‘don’t know/unsure’. Where responde nts completed this part of the question, the resultsare set out in tables 7.5.1 and 7.5.2. Tables 7.5.3 to 7.5.40 detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedbackcomments confirmed whether the right issues and the ways to address those issues had been identified.





Table 7.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q4a)


Total Yes No Don’t know/unsure

Statutory consultees 0

Local authorities 0

Landowners 2 1 1

Community consultees 82 43 20 19

Petitions 0

Total 84 44 21 19

Table 7.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q4b)




Local authorities 0

Landowners 2 1 1


Petitions 0

Total 81 29 32 20

7.5.3 The following sections set out the feedback comments received from respondents in connection to the identification of key issues associated with Putney Bridge Foreshore duringconstruction and our 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 measures to address the key issues Topic-based themes

Air quality and odour

Construction working hours andprogramme

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 feedback comments on the identified key issues

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

7.5.4 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 7.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to key issues during construction

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

7.5.5 The number and/or type of key issues

associated with the site is inconsistent withthe decision to select it as the preferredsite/indicates that this site should not havebeen selected.

7777 1 The sites that we consulted on at phase two consultation

have been identified through an extensive site selectionprocess (see our Site selection methodology paper on ourwebsite). We consulted on and agreed the methodology withkey stakeholders including potentially directly affected localauthorities and utilised a multidisciplinary approach toassess potential CSO sites against engineering, planning,environmental, property and community considerations.

We recognise that, given the locations where we areseeking to construct and operate the tunnel, many of theshortlisted sites are constrained. However, based on ourassessment we consider that, on balance, Putney BridgeForeshore is the most suitable site. This is because it wouldnot have a direct effect on the setting of the Grade II* listedSt Mary’s Church, it would have better vehicular access thanthe sites to the east and would avoid a pedestrian area. It

should be recognised that a foreshore site will always berequired given the location of the Putney Bridge CSO, whichneeds to be intercepted.

For further details on the results of the site selection processincluding our assessment of shortlisted sites, refer toappendix D of the Phase two scheme development report.

N

General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues

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

Table 7.5.4 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key effects during construction


7.5.6 Measures to address potential issues aresatisfactory.

8396 1 Your comment is noted and welcomed.

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

Table 7.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction


7.5.7 Measures to address potential issues areunsatisfactory/unconvincing.

8219, 8402, 8502 3 The measures set out in the Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper are intended to provide a broad overviewof how we intend to address potential issues associated withthe site. Further information can be found in the draft CoCP

N






and PEIR (volume 10).

Measures proposed to address potential likely significanteffects are being further developed and considered as partof the environmental impact assessment. The findings of theassessment, together with any recommendations formitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.

7.5.8 Measures to address potential effects areunsatisfactory because the wrong/not allissues have been identified.

9372 1 The key issues set out in the site information paper areintended to provide a broad overview of likely significanteffects and key issues associated with the site duringconstruction. It is not, however, an exhaustive list. Furtherlikely significant effects associated with the site andmeasures to address these are set out in the PEIR (volume10).

We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment,which will include a comprehensive assessment of likelysignificant effects arising from the proposals. The findings ofthe assessment together with any recommendations formitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO appli cation.

N

7.5.9 More information is needed on:

- measures to address issues

8402 1 We consider that we have undertaken a thorough andcomprehensive consultation exercise. As part of this, we

carefully considered the information we made available atour phase two consultation to ensure that consultees hadsufficient information 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 consistentwith 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 10). Measures proposed toaddress potential likely significant effects are being furtherdeveloped and considered as part of the environmentalimpact assessment. The findings of the assessment,together with any recommendations for mitigation, will beavailable as a part of the Environmental statement that willbe submitted with our DCO application.

N

- costings. The cost of acquiring, constructing and operating each siteis treated as commercially confidential information. While wecontinue to develop and revise our proposals we are not in aposition to be able to comment further on cost for individualwork areas.

N

7.5.10 Construction impacts must be minimised at GLA 1 We have sought to avoid or eliminate potential likely N








reported in the Environmental statement to be submittedwith our DCO application.

7.5.14 Effect of construction traffic emissions on airquality:

- detailed response

- effect on NO2 and PM10 levels.

7255, 8669, 8671, 8672, 8729, 8760, 8777,8966, 9486, LR13383

10 We have set out measures in our draft CoCP that will 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 10,section 4) stated that with these measures in place we do

not expect any significant local air quality effects arising fromvehicle and plant emissions at this construction site. We arepreparing a full assessment for submission within theEnvironmental statement as part of our DCO application.This will include dispersion modelling. Dispersion modellingwill assess the potential impacts of the construction phase atall proposed sites for the relevant short- and long-term NO2 and PM10 air quality objectives.

The proposed loss of a single holly tree, which would bereplaced, would not have a measurable impact on local airquality.

N

7.5.15 Effect of construction site activities and plant

emissions on air quality.

7354 1 N

7.5.16 General effect of construction activities onair quality due to loss of trees.

7901 1 N

7.5.17 Effects on health arising from dust, odour,air pollution and reduced air quality.

7205, 8669, 8760 3 Our PEIR (volume 10, section 4) considered the likelysignificant effects of dust arising from the construction site.The report concluded that the likely significant effects of dust

arising from construction would be reduced by theimplementation of measures contained in the CoCP . Whilenot a formal requirement, we are also preparing a Health impact assessment for submission with the application. TheHealth impact assessment will assess the full range of likelysignificant health and well-being effects of the project onidentified vulnerable groups.

N

7.5.18 Effect of odour arising from constructionactivities.

8321LO, 7903, 8774, 8966, 8998 5 It is not anticipated that the construction works will give riseto any significant odour effects as set out in our PEIR (volume 10, section 4). It is not expected that sewageodours would be emitted during the sewer interceptionworks at this location. Our draft CoCP confirms that airmanagement plans will be prepared and implemented foreach site, with proposed techniques in line with best practiceguidelines.

N

7.5.19 More information is needed on air qualityand odour effects.

8321LO 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. Thisincluded our PEIR (volume 10, section 4) which sets out ourinitial assessment of likely significant effects on air qualityfrom construction site activities comprising constructiontraffic on the road (air quality), emissions from barges (airquality), emissions from construction plant (air quality),

N






construction-generated dust. The proposals set out in ourdraft CoCP are included in the assessment. Odour is notaddressed as it is not expected that there would be anylikely significant construction effects. Further assessmentwill be undertaken as part of our on-going environmentalimpact assessment work and this, together with anyrecommendations for mitigation, will be reported in the Environmental statement to be submitted with our DCO

application. Our DCO application will also include a CoCP that will set out measures that must be implemented by ourcontractor to address the potential likely significant effectson air quality during construction. We are confident thereforethat the information we have provided is sufficient.

7.5.20 General air pollution effects. 8402, 8672, 8760, 9020, 9068, 9151, 9207 7 We have completed a preliminary environmentalassessment of the effects of the proposed development,which is set out in our PEIR (volume 10, section 4) thatconsiders the likely significant effects of our construction inrespect of air quality, dust, odour, noise and vibration, whichsingularly or collectively might be classed as 'pollution'. It didnot identify any likely significant effects at residential or othersensitive receptors (such as schools) near this site. A fullassessment of potential 'pollution' will be presented in theEnvironmental statement that we will submit with our DCO

application.We have also produced a draft CoCP which 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 Act1974, 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 and emissions from construction and demolition ” - Best PracticeGuidance 2008, as well as various British Standards. Ourcompliance with the regulatory regime applicable would bemonitored by the LBW.

N

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

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

Table 7.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the e ffects of air quality and odour during construction


7.5.22 The GLA and London Council's BestPractice Guidance (BPG) The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition should be implemented

GLA 1 We can confirm that the Best Practice Guidance has beentaken into account in developing our proposals for this site.Our draft CoCP sets out measures for managing our worksas well as details of the various regulatory regimes and

N






guidance 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, theMayor of London's Ambient Noise Strategy 2004 and “The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition ” - Best Practice Guidance 2008, as well asvarious British Standards.

Construction working hours and programmeSupportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction working hours and programme

Table 7.5.8 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction working hours and programme


7.5.23 Supportive of changes to constructionprogramme since phase one consultation.


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

Table 7.5.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme


7.5.24 More information is needed on theconstruction programme.

8402 1 The overall project programme is set out in the Timing project information paper . Details relating to the site specific

construction programme are set out in Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper .

N

7.5.25 At four years, the construction programme istoo long, concerned about the duration ofconstruction.

7305, 9068, 9372 3 The programming of works at all sites will be configured tominimise the duration of works and associated disruption tothe local area where possible. The length of the constructionperiod as set out in the consultation documents was theperiod assessed in the PEIR (volume 10) that works wouldbe underway and it is hoped that in many cases there will beperiods during which there will be no activity or lessintensive activity on some sites.

N

7.5.26 Extended working hours are unnecessary/ unreasonable.

7205 1 In our phase two consultation materials we have set out thelikely working hours for the site. Most work at this site wouldtake place in standard working hours, with a short period(three months) of continuous working to excavate the

connection tunnel. Table 2.1 of our site information paper forthis site does not identify extended standard hours as aproposal for this site.

N

7.5.27 Concerned about overnight/24-hour workinghours.

7205 1 At most of our sites we plan to carry out the majority ofworks within standard working hours, which are 8am-6pmweekdays, and 8am-1pm Saturdays. We may occasionallyneed to carry out works outside of standard working hoursfor reasons such as undertaking large concrete pours,delivering abnormal, large and heavy loads at times whenthere is reduced traffic. There would be approximately six

N






months of continuous working during phase three when theshort connection tunnel is excavated and built.

7.5.28 No guarantee that the project will keep tothese working hours.

9262 1 Construction working hours will be set out in the draft CoCP ,which will be submitted with our DCO application. If a DCOis granted we anticipate a series of requirements (similar toplanning conditions) that would control the development andexpect that the requirements would stipulate that thedevelopment must be carried out in accordance with the

agreed CoCP . We would also monitor our contractors toensure that they are operating in line with the CoCP .

N

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

7.5.29 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of construction working hours and programme.

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

Table 7.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to address the effects of construction working hours and programme


7.5.30 More information is needed on mitigation. 9262 1 We are developing a CoCP that will set out how we willmanage our construction sites to minimise disruption tonearby communities and will be submitted with our DCOapplication. Further details regarding the CoCP are set outin the Managing construction project information paper and

the draft CoCP published as part of our phase twoconsultation.

Your comments are noted. We will complete our works atthe earliest opportunity and shall continue to evaluate thebest possible construction method to enable this.

N

7.5.31 Minimise the extent and duration ofconstruction works.

7296, 8662, 8944, 8986, 9068, 9069, 9486 7 N

7.5.32 Other working hours mitigation including:

- can the planning schedules for lorriesand barges be made available?

- works should take place during a suitabletime so as to not disturb residents andminimise any congestion on the localroads.

8977, 9069 2 We are also developing a CoCP (a draft was provided aspart of our phase two consultation), which will includerequirements for a Traffic management plan to ensure thatconstruction traffic is carefully controlled to minimise anypotential effects on the road network including access to thelocal area, as well as setting out construction traffic routes,site access/egress points, signage and monitoringprocedures. It is not possible to provide full operationaltiming of vehicle movements as this will be subject to further

development by a contractor.

N

7.5.33 The work should be carried out in as short atime as possible and alternative methodsshould be investigated so that theconstruction period is minimised.

8986, LR9164 2 Your comments are noted. We will complete our works atthe earliest opportunity and shall continue to evaluate thebest possible construction method to enable this.

N





Construction site design and layout

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

Table 7.5.11 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction site design and layout


7.5.34 Improvement to site layout shown at phaseone consultation.

8671, 8777, 8966 3 Your support is noted and welcomed.

7.5.35 Supportive of the proposal to install a

temporary slipway given the prominence ofriver sports at this location.

GLA 1

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

Table 7.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout


7.5.36 Site layout appears to be unsuitable; thedesign and construction of the proposedslipway are excessive for its function.

LR9236 1 In light of comments made during phase two consultation weare considering alternative layouts for the provision of thetemporary slipway. Our revised proposals for this site will bethe subject of targeted consultation.

C

7.5.37 Extent of construction site; any agreement inprinciple to transfer land should be for theminimum necessary.

LBW, 9073 2 The construction site layout has been developed to minimisethe area required.

N

7.5.38 More information is required on constructiondesign, including a more detailedspecification.

8402, 9069 2 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. We provided theconstruction site layouts within our site information papers,however, the detailed design has yet to be finalised. We areconfident therefore that the information we have provided issufficient.

N

7.5.39 Location/existence of cofferdam. 8944, 9068 2 The cofferdam is necessary to enable construction of ourworks and its location is fixed by the need to intercept theexisting CSO outfall that discharges under Putney Bridge.Our design approach is to provide a minimum sizecofferdam to enable construction.

N

7.5.40 Layout of construction phase works withinthe site; if any additional space is requiredthe east end of Putney Embankment in frontof Thai Square and the Star and Gartershould be closed and used for constructionpurposes.

8861 1 Your comments are noted, the construction site layout hasbeen developed to minimise its size and impact upon thelocal area while allowing the flexibility needed by acontractor.

N

7.5.41 Existence and/or size of structure(s) withinthe foreshore of the River Thames: - should minimise clutter

7985, 8461, 8861, 9205 4 This site is required so that the existing CSO under PutneyBridge can be intercepted and its location has been chosento minimise the impact on Putney High Street (A219) andLower Richmond Road. The size of the foreshore structure

C






- consider whether work can be done inter-tidally

- should consult with PLA, ThamesRegional Rowing Club and local clubs ontemporary slipway.

proposed has been minimised but it is required toaccommodate the equipment proposed. We are preparing aNavigational risk assessment as part of our DCOapplication, the approach to which is being discussed withthe PLA. Preliminary discussions with the PLA have alsoinformed the design of the site. The design of thereplacement slip way is being undertaken in discussion withthe relevant users. Our revised proposals for this site will bethe subject of targeted consultation.

7.5.42 Other negative comments: - works area is excessive and the

approach will prolong the constructionperiod

- hazard to rowing.

8861, LR13383 2 The size of the cofferdam is the minimum required to enableconstruction. This approach, which also allows directtransfer of materials to barges, avoids a longer constructionperiod than sharing spaces such as the highway wouldrequire. We are preparing a Navigational risk assessment as part of our DCO application, which will consider theimpact on all river users.

N

Suggestions for construction site design and layout

Table 7.5.13 Suggestions for construction site design and layout

Ref Suggestions for construction site designand layout

Respondent ID No. Our response Outcome

7.5.43 Proposals should be in keeping with the

character of the local area.

8966, 9069 2 The construction site will be bound by a site hoarding to

minimise the impact on the character of the area. Thefinished design following construction is being developed tobe in keeping with Putney Embankment.

N

7.5.44 Minimise the size of the area of thetemporary site.

8944, 9068, 9069 3 The size of the cofferdam structure proposed and temporarywork site has been minimised but is required toaccommodate the necessary working area.

N

7.5.45 Do not build into/minimise structures withinthe River Thames foreshore.

8461 1 This site is required so that the existing CSO under PutneyBridge can be intercepted and its location has been chosento minimise the impact on Putney High Street (A219) andLower Richmond Road. The size of the cofferdam structureproposed has been minimised but is required toaccommodate the necessary working area.

N

7.5.46 Specific construction site designamendment: - temporary slipway must be appropriate

for vessels using it and should berealigned by 180 degrees and movedeastwards of the existing hardstandingoutside Chas Newen's facility

- Putney Drawdock needs to be retainedwith the facility to allow vessels to loadalongside during construction to minimisetemporary encroachment into the

EA, PLA, 8461, 8535, LR9236 5 In light of comments made during phase two consultation weare considering alternative layouts for the provision of thetemporary slipway. The layout of the permanent works areawill be developed to ensure suitable provision is made toenable mooring of vessels for loading/unloading activities.Waterman's Green is excluded from the site for the majorityof the construction. It is included at the final phase to allowthe installation of the electrical and control kiosk. The layoutof the temporary cofferdam would ensure that the workingsite would be protected from floods.

Our revised proposals for this site will be the subject of

C





Ref Suggestions for construction site designand layout

Respondent ID No. Our response Outcome

Thames an alternative exists to includeWaterman’s Green in the site compound

- not possible to tie the cofferdam wallsinto the existing local flood defencesunless you pile across the road.

targeted consultation.

7.5.47 Reduce the size of the cofferdam. 8502 1 The extent of the cofferdam is guided by the scale of theconstruction activities that need to be undertaken in the

foreshore. The cofferdam is required to be extendedeastwards under Putney Bridge to enable the connection tothe existing CSO.

N

7.5.48 Other construction site mitigationsuggestions:

- alternative location for slipway LBW, 9374LO, 8934, 8944, 8966, 9068,9069, 9486

8 In relation to the comment on the location of the slipwayplease see the response at 7.5.46.

Waterman's Green would be excluded from the site for themajority of the construction and would be included at thefinal phase to allow the installation of the electrical andcontrol kiosk.

The site would be fully secure within a site hoarding.

We have proposed a finished design that does not includeany of the temporary construction structures.

The areas dedicated to site offices and storage are alreadycompact and floating pontoons would require access pointsand disrupt the ability to utilise barge traffic in a constrainedlocation between Putney Bridge and Pier.

The detailed methods of fabrication are being reviewedacross the project to ensure the optimal solution whichincludes minimising the works that need to be undertaken onsite.

C

- avoid Waterman's Green N

- safe and secure site to avoid vandalism N

- temporary structures must not becomepermanent N

- could floating pontoons (for site offices,welfare, storage) be used to reduce the

construction area

N

- explore alternative methods offabrication. C


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment issues

Table 7.5.14 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment during construction


7.5.49 Effect of construction activities on theadjacent/nearby conservation area.

8535 1 Your support is noted and welcomed. Following feedback from phaseone consultation we have sought to amend our designs so that likelysignificant effects on the Grade II* Listed St Mary’s church and thePutney Embankment Conservation Area, including the cobbled slipway,are reduced.

7.5.50 Effect of construction activities on listedbuilding(s).

8535 1

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment issues

Table 7.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during construction


7.5.51 Effect of construction activities on local LBW, 7748, 7762, 8671, 8729, 8777, 8966, 8 We recognise that the site is in close proximity to a number N






heritage and listed structures including;Putney Embankment Conservation Area,the Grade II listed Putney Bridge, the GradeII* listed St Mary's Church, Grade II listedbollards and the 19th century drawdock andcobbled slipway.

9486 of locally historic and listed structures as detailed in ourPutney Bridge Foreshore site information paper and thePEIR (volume 10, section 7). In designing the scheme, wehave sought to preserve and enhance the character andappearance of the Putney Embankment Conservation Areaand to minimise likely significant effects on the setting of theGrade II listed Putney Bridge and the Grade II* listed StMary's Church. The Grade II listed bollards would also bere-located. In addition, we recognise the heritage value ofthe 19th century drawdock and cobbled slipway and ourconstruction works have been configured to ensure theirpreservation.

We are undertaking a historic environment assessment,which will be reported in the Environmental statement . Thiswill identify any likely significant effects of our proposedconstruction activities, including effects on the setting ofhistoric assets, and any mitigation required to address sucheffects.

Our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) statedthat works to or in the vicinity of listed buildings would beundertaken in accordance with all required consents andlicences and that protection measures would be put in placeat the start of the works. We would also notify English

Heritage and the local planning authority prior to undertakingworks.

7.5.52 Effect of construction activities on theadjacent/nearby conservation area.

LR13383 1 N

7.5.53 Effect of construction activities on listedbuildings including Grade II* St Mary'sChurch.

8535, 8662, 8986, 9486 4 N

7.5.54 Effect of construction activities onarchaeology.

8777 1 Our phase two consultation material included a preliminaryassessment of likely significant archaeological effects asdetailed in the PEIR (volume 10, section 7). While the site issituated within a locally designated archaeological priorityarea, our preliminary assessment identified that no buriedheritage assets of very high significance are anticipated thatmight merit a mitigation strategy of permanent preservationin situ . It is therefore considered that the likely significantenvironmental effects of the proposed development could besuccessfully mitigated by a suitable programme ofarchaeological investigation before and/or duringconstruction to achieve preservation by record (throughadvancing understanding of asset significance). An

assessment of the likely significant effects on the historicenvironment is being completed as a part of ourenvironmental impact assessment. The findings would bereported as part of the Environmental statement that wouldsupport our DCO application. We are consulting with EnglishHeritage as part of this process.

Our draft CoCP sets out a range of measures that would beadopted by our contractor in respect of archaeology and afull assessment of the likely significant effects of the schemeon the historic environment, together with any

N






recommendations for mitigation, will be set out in ourEnvironmental statement that will be submitted with ourDCO application. As set out in our CoCP, we would put inplace procedures for ensuring construction works areappropriately monitored to identify and record anyarchaeological finds.

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

7.5.55 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 the effects on the historic environment

Table 7.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction


7.5.56 More information is needed on historicenvironment mitigation.

EH 1 An assessment of the likely significant effects on the historicenvironment is being completed as a part of ourenvironmental impact assessment. We are consulting withEnglish Heritage as part of this process. The findings of theassessment, together with any recommendations formitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO appli cation.

Additionally, our draft CoCP (provided at phase twoconsultation) sets out a range of measures to safeguard the

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 LBW prior toundertaking works and continue to engage with them closelyon the planning of the works.

N

7.5.57 Locate construction works to minimise theireffect on the setting and appearance of localheritage features.

7762 1 The indicative layout of the construction works is set out inthe Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper . Theconstruction works would be in place for a limited period andwould be removed once the construction has beencompleted. At this site we have located our works tominimise the effect on the setting and appearance of nearbylisted structures including Putney Bridge and St Mary's

Church, and Putney Embankment Conservation Area.We have completed a preliminary assessment of the likelysignificant effects of our works on the historic environment,as set out in our PEIR (volume 10, section 7). OurEnvironmental statement, which will be provided as a part ofour DCO application, will set out a full assessment of thelikely significant effects on the setting of these historicassets during the construction and operational phases. Thiswill identify any potential significant effects of our proposedconstruction activities, including effects on the setting of

N



7 P t B id F h






minimise intrusion into occupied residential properties andon sensitive areas. Further details on lighting can also befound in our Managing construction project information paper .

Additionally a Lighting management plan will be prepared byour contractor. The plan would set out appropriate lightingsolutions for the site. We would anticipate that the planwould be agreed by the LBW, the Environment Agency and

the PLA before the works commence, as part of the‘requirements’ (conditions) of any approval. As part of thesite is within the foreshore we would agree appropriatelighting for this part of the site with the PLA. Whereappropriate we would also provide lighting to the siteboundary to ensure that safe routes are provided in line withindustry standards.

During working hours artificial lighting will be used asnecessary. Part B of our CoCP, which will be available aspart of our DCO application, will set out further details onlighting during construction.

Our contractor would be required to implement themeasures set out in the CoCP .

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of lighting7.5.66 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of lighting during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of lighting

Table 7.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of lighting during construction


7.5.67 Other lighting mitigation included:

- invitation to tender documents shouldcontain specs with specific requirements,to ensure that each company bids on thesame basis and they must contain detailsof light levels etc

- work with residents to agree the CoCP

- lighting pollution should be contained bythe latest technologies, baffles, domesand screens.

8944, 8986, 9068, 9069, 9486, LR9236 6 As set out in our draft CoCP , construction lighting would beprovided to ensure the safety and security of the site andwould be designed to comply with the provisions of BS5489,CoCP for the Design of Road Lighting, where applicable. Forexample, the lighting would be located and directed so as tominimise intrusion into occupied residential properties andon sensitive areas. Further details on lighting can also befound in our Managing construction project information

paper .Additionally a Lighting management plan will be prepared byour contractor. The plan would set out appropriate lightingsolutions for the site. We anticipate that the plan would beagreed by the LBW and the Environment Agency before theworks commence, as part of the ‘requirements’ (conditions)of any approval. As part of the site is located within theforeshore we would agree appropriate lighting for this part ofthe site with the PLA. Where appropriate we would alsoprovide lighting to the site boundary to ensure that safe

N

7.5.68 More information is needed on lightingmitigation.

9262 1 N

7 P t B id F h






routes are provided in line with industry standards. Duringworking hours artificial lighting will be used as necessary.Part B of our CoCP, which will be available as part of ourDCO application, will set out further details on lighting duringconstruction.

Our CoCP will set out a range of measures that ourcontractor would be required to implement. We will producetender documents that comply with relevant European

regulations and that ensure that we are able tocomparatively assess proposals from contractors. We willconsider whether it would be necessary to include furtherinformation to that set out in the CoCP in our tenderdocuments.

7.5.69 Control the location and direction ofconstruction lighting.

LBW 1 As set out in our draft CoCP, site lighting would be providedto ensure the safety and security of the sites and would belocated and directed so as to minimise intrusion intooccupied residential properties and on sensitive areas.

N


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (aquatic)

7.5.70 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic)

Table 7.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction


7.5.71 Encroachment into the River Thamesforeshore.

8461 1 As part of our PEIR (volume 10, section 5) we haveassessed the likely significant construction effects of theproposed development on aquatic ecology including theforeshore habitat. The PEIR considers the likely significanteffects on the foreshore and River Thames and recognises anumber of impacts, including those associated with a newmooring and any necessary channel reshaping or dredging.Many of the likely significant effects would be controlledthrough measures set out in our CoCP . It is also noted thatmany effects would be temporary and the habitat wouldrecover following removal of the temporary structures. We

acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We arepreparing a full aquatic ecology assessment for submissionwithin the Environmental statement as part of our DCOapplication.

N

7.5.72 Effect on foreshore habitat(s), although ofpoor species diversity.

LR9491 1 N

7.5.73 Effect on river habitat(s) from the proposedslipway.

EA, 7302 2 N

7.5.74 Effect of dredging on foreshore and river. LBW, 8977 2 N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on the natural environment (aquatic)

7.5.75 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during construction.






Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on natural environment (aquatic)

Table 7.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during construction


7.5.76 Provision of compensation habitat, includingrefuges for fish and other species.

LR9491 1 Many of the effects during the construction phase would betemporary and it is anticipated that the habitat would recoverfollowing removal of the temporary structures. We do notbelieve that it is necessary to provide any compensationhabitat for the construction phase of the works.

N

7.5.77 Establish ecological management plans. LBW 1 Our draft CoCP sets out a range of measures to control andlimit disturbance to habitats and species. Measures includedin the draft CoCP include development of ecologicalmanagement plans that will set out strategies for managinghabitats and species as well as measures including controlson noise and vibration to protect fish. The plans will beinformed by the findings of our aquatic ecology assessment.We will require our contractor to comply with therequirements of the CoCP .

N


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial)

Table 7.5.22 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction


7.5.78 Waterman's Green will be maintained as itcurrently exists.

7921 1 Your support is noted and welcomed. It is proposed to minimise theimpact of the works upon Waterman ’s Green.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial)

Table 7.5.23 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction


7.5.79 Damage to trees arising from constructionactivities.

8662 1 The current proposal would result in the loss of a single hollytree that would be replaced. There would be a requirementfor pruning of some trees where branches extend into theconstruction site. The approach to pruning and allsafeguarding measures to protect the trees duringconstruction would be undertaken as specified in BritishStandard BS5837, where practicable and based on

consultation with the LBW tree officer. The permanentelectrical and control kiosk would be located near thedisused toilet block on Waterman’s Green to minimise therisk of damage to trees. Our draft CoCP sets out how wewould protect existing trees during construction.

N

7.5.80 Loss of mature trees, the value of whichcannot be underestimated. They absorbcarbon and pollution thus improving airquality, they help combat the urban heatisland effect by reducing ambienttemperature through evaporative cooling.

7901, 8977, 9486 3 N

7.5.81 General effect of construction activities onlocal wildlife.

7832, 8977 2 Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effectson wildlife associated with the construction of the tunnel isincluded in our PEIR (volume 10, section 6) which sets out

N

7.5.82 Effect of construction activities on bats. 7832 1 N







7.5.83 Effect on birds, including kingfisher, heronsand green woodpeckers.

8519 1 the likely significant effects in terms of notable species,including bats and birds and their habitats, and the RiverThames and Tidal Tributaries SINC. The project has beendesigned to minimise likely significant effects on wildlife andhabitats where possible, where effects have been identifiedmitigation has been built into the design. The likelysignificant effects of the development on the SINC will beassessed and reported in the Environmental statement thatwill be submitted as part of the application. The CoCP, which will be submitted with the application, will ensure thatworks are undertaken in compliance with applicablelegislation, and with relevant nature conservation policiesand guidance, including the Mayor of London ’s Biodiversity strategy and local biodiversity action plans. Where speciesare protected by specific legislation, approved guidancewould be followed, appropriate mitigation would beproposed and any necessary licences or consents obtained.

N

7.5.84 Effect on terrestrial habitat(s) includingeffect on London Wetland Centre.

7832 1 N

7.5.85 Environmental/ecological impact on PutneyBridge, Putney High Street (A219),particularly caused by high traffic levels.

8777 1 N

7.5.86 Effect on Site of Importance for NatureConservation (SINC), including roadalongside Beverley Brook and disruption towildlife.

8519 1 N

7.5.87 Effect of construction activities on Sites ofSpecial Scientific Interest (SSSI).

7832 1 The nearest SSSI has been identified as the LondonWetland Centre. It is not considered that the works atPutney Bridge Foreshore site would have a detrimentaleffect upon this SSSI.

N

7.5.88 More information is needed on the effect ofconstruction activities on the natural

environment.

LR9491 1 We consider that we have undertaken a thorough andcomprehensive consultation exercise. As part of this, we

carefully considered the information we made available atour phase two consultation to ensure that consultees hadsufficient information to respond to the consultation. Webelieve that sufficient information is available regarding theconstruction phase within the consultation documents suchas our draft CoCP and PEIR . We are confident thereforethat the information we have provided is sufficient. Furtherassessment will be undertaken as part of our on-goingenvironmental impact assessment work and this will bereported in the Environmental statement to be submittedwith our DCO application.

N

7.5.89 Other natural environment issue; shouldconsider the importance of any existingbuildings for protected species.

LR9447 1 There are no existing buildings on the site but thesignificance of the effects of the development on all potentialhabitats will be assessed and reported in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of the application.

N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial)

7.5.90 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial)

Table 7.5.24 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction


7.5.91 More information is needed on mitigation; 9262 1 Details of proposed mitigation measures and initial ecology N







will existing trees and green areas beprotected?

surveys for the site were set out in the PEIR (volume 10,section 6) as part of our phase two consultation. As wehave completed our surveys we have confirmed thepresence or absence of species and habitats and developedmitigation measures as necessary. Our draft CoCP sets outa range of measures that would be implemented to controland limit disturbance, and relevant measures will beassessed in our Environmental statement .

7.5.92 No guarantee that the mitigation proposedwill be delivered, should ensure temporaryslipway will be removed.

EA 1 If a DCO is granted we anticipate a series of requirements(similar to planning conditions) that would control thedevelopment. We expect that the requirements wouldsecure the provision of the mitigation measures set out inthe Environmental s tatement that will be submitted with theapplication.

The temporary slipway is a temporary measure to avoiddisruption to users of the current slipway. The proposalincludes removal of the temporary slipway once the existingslipway becomes available again after construction at thissite is complete.

N

7.5.93 Retention of mature trees duringconstruction.

8519, 8944, 9068, 9069, LR13383 5 The current proposal would result in the loss of a single hollytree that would be replaced. There would be a requirementfor pruning of some trees where branches extend into theconstruction site. The approach to pruning and allsafeguarding measures to protect the trees duringconstruction would be undertaken as specified in BritishStandard BS5837, where practicable and based onconsultation with the LBW tree officer. The permanentelectrical and control kiosk has been located near thedisused toilet block on Waterman’s Green to minimise therisk of damage to trees. Our draft CoCP sets out how wewould protect existing trees during construction.

N

7.5.94 Retention of other vegetation/habitat during

construction; holly bushes need to beprotected. They are ancient and it is a localtradition to collect Christmas holly fromthese bushes.

9382 1 N

7.5.95 Locate construction activities within the siteto avoid sensitive and designated areas.

LR9491 1 The majority of construction activities would be containedwithin our proposed construction site. As set out in ourPutney Bridge Foreshore site information paper , limitedadditional construction activities will be required outside ofthe construction site. These include installation of equipmentto monitor environmental matters such as noise, vibration

and dust, protection works to third party structures (such asbridges), diversion of utilities, temporary connection toutilities, traffic management works, dredging and protectionof the riverbed.

N

7.5.96 Undertake site surveys prior to thecommencement of construction to identifysensitive species and habitats.

LBW 1 We have already completed a range of surveys at this siteas detailed in the PEIR (volume 10, section 6). Where ourmethodology for the Environmental statement , which hasbeen agreed with the LBW, identifies the need for furthersurveys we will ensure that these are completed prior tosubmission of our DCO application. If our assessment of

N









movement caused by the construction of themain tunnel.

in the ground, the level of which will depend on a range offactors including the size and depth of construction works aswell as existing ground conditions. The use of moderntunnelling methods and the depth of our tunnels, which aregenerally much deeper than most other tunnels underLondon, minimise the likelihood of any potential groundmovement.

We are assessing the potential likely significant effects of

ground movement in advance of the works and, wherenecessary, will carry out protective measures. We will alsomonitor actual ground movement during and after thetunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted.We will also carry out a defects survey on buildings locatedover, or close to, our tunnels and worksites where weconsider this necessary. The method used for assessingsettlement is similar to that used for the Channel Tunnel RailLink, the Jubilee Line Extension, and Crossrail.

In the unlikely event of damage occurring to property due toour construction works taking place nearby, disturbancecompensation may be available as detailed in our Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme .

The nearest residences to the site are flats at KenilworthCourt and Richmond Mansions, located to the south of the

site. To the west of the site are the Star and GarterMansions and to the southeast is the new Putney Wharfdevelopment.

The potential for residential moorings situated to thenorthwest of the site at Putney Pier has also been identifiedand these have been included in the assessment. Theresidential properties and other sensitive receptors selectedfor the noise and vibration assessment are identified in ourPEIR (volume 10, section 9) at Table 9.4.1 and wereselected as being representative of the range of noiseclimates where sensitive receivers are situated around thesite. Our PEIR (volume 10, section 9) sets out a preliminaryqualitative assessment of noise and vibration arising fromconstruction traffic, as well as above and below groundconstruction activities on sensitive receptors. The proposals

set out in our draft CoCP are included in our assessmentand have been completed in line with a methodology agreedwith the LBW. It concludes that noise from barges would belimited and would mainly consist of engine noise from tugboats. For road traffic, the routes around the site all carryheavy traffic flows, except for Putney Embankment andThames Place. The use of barges greatly reduces thenumber of lorry movements per day, and the noise impactassociated with the increase in Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV)traffic is therefore likely to be slight in magnitude. Our

7.5.106 Effect of noisy construction activities onquality of life/ residential amenity.

7205, LR9236 2 N






y g



assessment used Defra's London noise maps.

Our Environmental statement, which will be submitted withour DCO application, will include a noise and vibrationsection that will be completed in line with the methodologythat is compliant with BS5228, BS6472 and BS7385 andwhich has been agreed with the LBW. Our DCO applicationwill also include a CoCP that will set out measures that mustbe implemented by our contractor during the works toaddress the potential likely significant effects of noise andvibration. We are confident therefore that the information wehave provided is sufficient.

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

7.5.112 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 of noise and vibration

Table 7.5.26 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction


7.5.113 More information is needed on noise andvibration mitigation.

8760, 9262 2 Our PEIR (volume 10, section 9) sets out our initialqualitative assessment of likely significant noise andvibration from construction site activities, noise fromconstruction traffic on roads outside the site and noise andvibration from operation of the site. The proposals set out inour draft CoCP are included in the assessment. The PEIR assessment used Defra's London noise maps.

The Environmental statement that will be submitted with ourDCO application will include a full assessment of likelysignificant noise and vibration effects that will be completedin line with the methodology that is compliant with BS5228,BS6472 and BS7385 and which has been agreed with theLBW. If significant noise and/or vibration effects areidentified at a site, we will set out appropriate mitigationmeasures to provide appropriate attenuation.

Our draft CoCP sets 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 of

enclosures and temporary stockpiles to provide acousticscreens. Specific measures such as acoustic suppressionsystems, operation of equipment in a mode that minimisesnoise and shutting down equipment when not in use arealso identified in our draft CoCP . Our contractor would berequired to comply with the CoCP . The draftCoCP alsostates that our contractor would be required to apply forSection 61 consents under the Control of Pollution Act 1974.These would set out specific working methods and themeasures to minimise noise and vibration as well as any

N

7.5.114 Mitigation proposed to address noise andvibration issues is inadequate/insufficient:

- need to continue to develop workingmethod proposals to reduce the scale,environmental impact, noise anddisruption arising from these works.

8671 1 N




y g



appropriate monitoring measures, to be agreed with localauthority environmental health officers.

7.5.115 Enclosing/covering machinery to reducenoise leaving the site.

9486 1 As set out in our Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper our contractor would be required to implement noiseand vibration control measures at the site, in line with therequirements of the CoCP . The contractor would also haveto gain approval prio r to the construction work from the LBWthrough a Section 61 application under the Control of

Pollution Act which would set out specific working methodsand the measures to minimise noise and vibration. Thiswould ensure that the noise levels are reasonable and bestpractical means are applied. The measures would be agreedwith local authority environmental health officers.Additionally, we would implement measures to minimisenoise and vibration from plant and works including theselection of appropriate plant and equipment, the suitablesiting of equipment and the use of site enclosures to provideacoustic screening. Full details of the measures to beadopted for the construction works at this site will be set outin the CoCP to be submitted with our DCO application.

N

7.5.116 Erect site hoarding of at least 2.4m for siteboundaries close to residential properties

GLA, 9486 2 Our PEIR (volume 10, section 9) sets out a preliminaryassessment of noise and vibration that assumes the use ofsite enclosures, and temporary stockpiles, where practicable

and necessary, to provide acoustic screening. At this site asite hoarding of 2.4m is proposed.

N

7.5.117 Restrict or limit working hours. 9486 1 Our proposed working hours for this site were set out in thephase two consultation materials, as detailed in our Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper . Most works at thissite would be undertaken in standard working hours withcontinuous 24-hour working required only for the connectiontunnel works.

N

7.5.118 Adopt suitable measures to control noiseand vibration in the CoCP .

LR9236 1 Our draft CoCP sets 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 and temporary stockpiles to provide acousticscreens. Specific measures such as acoustic suppression

systems, operation of equipment in a mode that minimisesnoise and shutting down equipment when not in use werealso identified in our draft CoCP .

N

7.5.119 Other noise and vibration mitigation will berequired including high levels ofsound/vibration protection and a full buildingand drains survey should be carried out onKenilworth Court before, during and after thework.

9486, LR13383 2 Our preliminary assessment of noise and vibration hasincorporated a number noise and vibration attenuationmeasures that would be adopted by our contractor. Thesemeasures are consistent with our draft CoCP and include:the selection appropriate plant and equipment, siting ofequipment, use of site enclosures and stockpiles to provide

N






acoustic screening, careful programming and choice oftransport routes. In light of the comments in response to ourphase two consultation and as part of the process ofpreparing an Environmental statement we will considerwhether there are different or further measures that wouldbe appropriate for this site.

Our Settlement project information paper providesinformation on our approach to controlling and limitingground movement, which can cause settlement, associatedwith construction of the tunnel. It is acknowledged thatconstruction of the tunnel will cause some small movementsin the ground, the level of which will depend on a range offactors including the size and depth of construction works aswell as existing ground conditions. The use of moderntunnelling methods and the depth of our tunnels, which aregenerally much deeper than most other tunnels underLondon, minimise the likelihood of any potential groundmovement.

We are assessing the potential likely significant effects ofground movement in advance of the works and, wherenecessary, will carry out protective measures. We will alsomonitor actual ground movement during and after thetunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted.We will also carry out a defects survey on buildings locatedover, or close to, our tunnels and worksites where weconsider this necessary. The method used for assessingsettlement is similar to that used for the Channel Tunnel RailLink, the Jubilee Line Extension, and Crossrail.


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

7.5.120 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 7.5.27 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during construction


7.5.121 Temporary loss of public open space is

unacceptable.

9486 1 We acknowledge that the area of open space at Waterman's

Green as well as the slipway and part of the Thames Pathwould be unavailable during our works. However, wepropose alternative access to the River Thames and wenote that use of Waterman's Green is limited. Our PEIR (volume 10, section10) concludes that the effects on openspace would not be significant. While part of the ThamesPath would be closed the works would only affect a shortstretch of the path and therefore there are adjacent locationswhere the riverside can be enjoyed.

N

7.5.122 There is a shortage of public open space inthe local area.

7832, 7950 2 N

7.5.123 Effect of construction activities on therecreational enjoyment of open space.

7750 1 N

7.5.124 Duration of construction and associatedeffect on access to open space and otherrecreational amenities.

7305 1 N






7.5.125 Effect on children/young people andteenagers arising from the loss of openspace.

7754 1 A full Environmental statement that assesses the likelysignificant effects of our development will be submitted aspart of our DCO application.

N

7.5.126 The site is a very valuable recreationalamenity for the local community.

7305, 7754, 7832, 7901, 7950, 8519, 8998 7 N

7.5.127 Duration of construction and associatedeffect on access to open space and otherrecreational amenities.

7305, 7969 2 N

7.5.128 Effect on access to and recreationalenjoyment of the riverfront.

7305, 7747, 7754, 7985, 8519 5 N

7.5.129 Disruption to sports groups and other localclubs.

8825, 9072, 9181, 9253 4 We acknowledge that the interception of the CSO will resultin building in the foreshore. However, we are constrained asto where we can locate out works in this built-up area. Weare completing a navigational risk assessment to fullyunderstand the likely significant effects of the scheme andwill continue to liaise with the PLA and river users, includinglocal rowing clubs, to develop appropriate mitigation.

We do not believe that our works would have a detrimentaleffect on the Boat Race, but would work with organisers tounderstand issues and to identify mitigation for the event.

N

7.5.130 Effect on river navigation and recreationalriver users. Locating the shaft at Putneywould mean constructing an industrial jettyto accommodate industrial barge traffic. Thiswould present a significant safety hazard forrowers and sailors of all ages and couldundermine Putney's river-based culture.

It is be vitally important that Thames Waterengages early, and in detail, with the PLA,

the Thames Regional Rowing Council andthe local clubs (including TRC) on thisspecific issue.

GLA, 13476, 7747, 7750, 7754, 7771,7839, 7852, 7901, 8546, 8825, 9205, 9253,9262

14

7.5.131 Effect on the Boat Race and other riverevents.

7852, 9068, 9069, 9072, 9159, 9167, 9181,9486

8 N

7.5.132 Proximity of the preferred site to rowingclubs along the Putney embankment.

9159 1 N

7.5.133 Reach a commercial agreement to utilisethe former public toilet space rather thaninstalling equipment on Waterman’s Green.

8777 1 We are unable to use the disused toilets as these are ownedby a third party who has developed alternative proposals fortheir use.

N

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

7.5.134 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 effects on open space and recreationTable 7.5.28 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation during construction


7.5.135 Undertake fluvial modelling to establish theimpact on the use of the river and riverfront.

8546 1 We are currently completing fluvial modelling and initialfindings have informed our site design. The findings of thismodelling will provide information that will allow us to fullyestablish whether the works would have a detrimental effecton the River Thames and will be reported as a part of our

C








will assess the likely significant effects on businesses, theeconomy and tourism.

7.5.144 Effect on property prices. 8321LO, 9068, 9069, LR13383 4 Landowners may have a statutory entitlement to claimcompensation for the diminution of the value of theirproperty due to the construction of the tunnel. In addition tothe statutory process we have published an Exceptional hardship procedure which sets out how we will assessclaims from householders who contend that they are

suffering exceptional hardship as a result of being unable tosell their property because it is potentially impacted by thecurrently published Thames Tunnel project proposals. Wehave also published a Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme which sets out details ofcompensation that would be available during construction fordamage or loss, required protection measures andcompulsory purchase.

N

7.5.145 Effect on ability to sell/ rent property. 8321LO, 9068, 9069, 9486 4 N

7.5.146 Proposals will create increasedopportunities for crime, vandalism and anti-social behaviour.

9262 1 As set out in our draft CoCP (section 4.7) site security is animportant issue to us and we would ensure that all sites aresecure and staffed for security on a 24-hour basis. All siteswould have limited entry points and a boundary to minimiseopportunities for unauthorised entry. We would also consultwith local crime prevention officers to agree securityproposals for each site and put in place regular liaison to

review security effectiveness and responses to anyincidents. The design of our site boundary would alsoensure that there is adequate lighting (CoCP , section 4.6), toprovide a safe route for the passing public and we wouldtake precautions to avoid shadows cast by our site hoardingon surrounding footpaths and roads to deter the potential formuggings. Where agreed with the LBW we would also haveremote CCTV monitoring.

N

7.5.147 Health and safety issues associated with theconstruction site.

7732, 8774, 9191, 9262, 9486, LR13383 6 The site would be operated in line with all relevant healthand safety standards and requirements, as detailed in ourdraft CoCP . In particular, our construction traffic would becontrolled in line with measures set out in section 5 of ourCoCP. The safety of other road users and the surroundingcommunity is important to us. We will operate all of ourconstruction sites to ensure that they meet all health and

safety requirements.

N

7.5.148 Effect on quality of life. 7205, 7815, 7901, 7950, 8760, 8966,8986, 9207, 9486

9 Our PEIR (volume 10) provides a preliminary assessment ofthe likely significant effects of the project on a range oftopics, including noise and vibration; air quality (includingdust emissions) and odour; and transport, based on amethodology that has been agreed with the LBW. A fullassessment will be provided with the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.Where likely significant effects are identified we would put in

N

7.5.149 Effect of construction activities on humanhealth, both mental and physical.

9486 1 N

7.5.150 Effect of construction activities on residentialamenity.

8640, 8671, 8774, 8966, 9069, 9072,9135, 9191, 9372, LR13383

10 N






place mitigation measures to address these effects, inaddition to the measures that were set out in our draftCoCP .

We are also preparing a Health impact assessment that willexamine the likely significant effects of the proposeddevelopment on human mental and physical health andwell-being and possible effects within the population; thefindings of this study will inform the design for this site aswell as mitigation measures to address any likely significanteffects.

7.5.151 Proximity to residential properties, includingStar and Garter Mansions, Kenilworth Courtand Putney Wharf.

GLA, 7205, 7255, 7304, 7771, 7815, 7901,8966, 8986, 9068, 9069, 9262

12 Our site selection process, as detailed in our Site selection methodology included an assessment of the shortlisted sitesagainst five 'community' considerations to help determinetheir suitability. These included proximity to sensitivereceptors (including residential and schools), socio-economic, health and equality considerations. Our Phase two scheme development report provides an overview ofhow each site was chosen.

Our PEIR (volume 10, section 10) provides a preliminaryassessment of the likely significant effects of the scheme onresidential amenity and concludes that, given therelationship of the residential dwellings in relation to theproposed construction site area, any potential impacts on

residential amenity are likely to affect a relatively smallnumber of dwellings. The effects on users of the site arealso likely to be limited. We are preparing an Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of our DCOapplication and will assess the likely significant effects of theproposed development.

N

7.5.152 The area around the construction site isdensely populated.

7732, 7762, 9068, 9069, 9486 5 N

7.5.153 Proximity to and effect on community andsocial amenities such as the river.

7305 1 N

7.5.154 Extent and duration of construction works ina predominantly residential area.

7304, 8966, 9372 3 N

7.5.155 Effect of construction activities on the localcommunity.

7985, 8502 2 N

7.5.156 General disruption associated withconstruction activities.

8321LO, 7305, 8402, 9068, 9135 5 N

7.5.157 Effect on immediate neighbouring residentshas not been properly addressed by thephase two consultation.

8777 1 N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects

7.5.158 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects

Table 7.5.31 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during construction


7.5.159 More information is needed on socio-

economic mitigation.

9068, 9069, 9262, 9486, LR13383 5 We believe that we have set out a range of measures that

would mitigate the likely significant effects of theconstruction at this site. In particular, our draft CoCP identifies that our contractor will be required to implement arange of measures at the site during construction, includingbest practice measures to minimise noise and vibration fromplant and works including the selection of appropriate plantand equipment, siting of equipment, and use of hoardings toprovide acoustic screens. Additionally our PEIR assessments take into account the mitigation measures setout in the CoCP and assume that the mitigation is

N

7.5.160 Adopt suitable measures in the CoCP . LR9236 1 N

7.5.161 Provide adequate site hoarding andsecurity.

9068, 9069, 9262 3 N






implemented.

We are continuing to develop our CoCP and theEnvironmental statement which will be submitted as part ofour DCO application.

7.5.162 Provide appropriate compensation. 9262 1 Landowners may have a statutory entitlement to claimcompensation for the diminution on the value of theirproperty due to the construction of the tunnel. In addition tothe statutory process we have published an Exceptional

hardship procedure which sets out how we will assessclaims from householders who contend that they aresuffering exceptional hardship as a result of being unable tosell their property because it is potentially impacted by thecurrently published Thames Tunnel project proposals. Wehave also published A guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme which sets out details ofcompensation that would be available during constructionarising from damage or loss, for required protectionmeasures, and for compulsory purchase.

N

7.5.163 Restrict or limit construction working hours. 9068, 9069 2 The length of the construction period indicated in the phasetwo consultation documents is the maximum period thatworks would be underway. The programming of works at allsites will be configured to minimise the duration of worksand associated disruption to the local area where possible.

N


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to structures and utilities

7.5.164 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to structures and utilities during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities

Table 7.5.32 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during construction


7.5.165 Risk of subsidence. 9144 1 Our Settlement project information paper providesinformation on our approach to controlling and limitingground movement, which can cause settlement, associatedwith construction of the tunnel. It is acknowledged thatconstruction of the tunnel will cause some small movements

in the ground, the level of which will depend on a range offactors including the size and depth of construction works aswell as existing ground conditions. The use of moderntunnelling methods and the depth of our tunnels, which aregenerally much deeper than most other tunnels underLondon, minimise the likelihood of any potential groundmovement.

We are assessing the potential likely significant effects ofground movement in advance of the works and, where

N

7.5.166 Structural damage to bridges arising fromconstruction activities.

8944, 9068, 9069 3 N

7.5.167 Structural damage to other structures

including Putney Wharf.

9374LO, 8662, 8760, 8944, 9068, 9069,

9144, 9265

8 N

7.5.168 Possibility of ground movement and theassociated effect on buildings and structuresincluding damage from slippage/movementof the river bed to river bank.

9374LO 1 N

7.5.169 Structural damage to bridges arising fromtunnelling.

8944, 9068, 9069 3 N

7.5.170 Structural damage to residential buildings 8944, 9068, 9069 3 N






arising from tunnelling. necessary, will carry out protective measures. We will alsomonitor actual ground movement during and after thetunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted.We will also carry out a defects survey on buildings locatedover, or close to, our tunnels and worksites where weconsider this necessary. The method used for assessingsettlement is similar to that used for the Channel Tunnel RailLink, the Jubilee Line Extension, and Crossrail.

In the unlikely event of damage occurring to propertybecause of our construction works taking place nearby,disturbance compensation may be available as detailed inour Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme .

7.5.171 Structural damage to other structures arisingfrom tunnelling.

8662, 8944, 8986, 9068, 9069 5 N

7.5.172 Possibility of ground movement andassociated effect on buildings and structuresarising from tunnelling.

8986 1 N

7.5.173 Structural damage to residential buildingsarising from vibrations from works traffic.

7255, 8944, 9068, 9069 4 Residential buildings on the Lower Richmond Road and onthe foreshore of the River Thames east of Putney Bridge arelocated within the vicinity of the site. Our PEIR (volume 10,section 9) sets out our preliminary assessment of the likelysignificant effects of noise and vibration, which includes anassessment of Star and Garter Mansions, Kenilworth Court,Richmond Mansions, St Mary's Church, Putney Wharf andothers. In relation to vibration, the assessment considersevents which have the potential to result in damage tobuildings or structures and human response to vibration,based on the 'worst case' conditions that may arise during

vibration intense activities within the site compound. We donot anticipate that any buildings, walls, bridges or otherstructures will suffer structural damage as a result of ourworks.

N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities

7.5.174 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities

Table 7.5.33 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during construction


7.5.175 More information is needed on mitigation ofeffects on structures and utilities and howthey would be assessed.

9262 1 Our Settlement project information paper providesinformation on our approach to controlling and limitingground movement, which can cause settlement, associated

with construction of the tunnel. It is acknowledged thatconstruction of the tunnel will cause some small movementsin the ground, the level of which will depend on a range offactors including the size and depth of construction works aswell as existing ground conditions. The use of moderntunnelling methods and the depth of our tunnels, which aregenerally much deeper than most other tunnels underLondon, minimise the likelihood of any potential groundmovement.

We are assessing the potential likely significant effects of

N

7.5.176 Structural monitoring of buildings. 8944, 9068, 9069 3 N

7.5.177 Structural monitoring of other structures. 9374LO, 8986, 9144 3 N

7.5.178 Undertake protection works. 9382 1 N

7.5.179 The effect on the river wall needs to beassessed thoroughly by an expert structuralengineering firm well in advance, rather thanleaving it to guidelines for contractors.

8662, 8883, 9265 3 N






ground movement in advance of the works and, wherenecessary, will carry out protective measures. We will alsomonitor actual ground movement during and after thetunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted.We will also carry out a defects survey on buildings locatedover, or close to, our tunnels and worksites where weconsider this necessary. The method used for assessingsettlement is similar to that used for the Channel Tunnel RailLink, the Jubilee Line Extension, and Crossrail.


Townscape and visual

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to townscape and visual effects

7.5.180 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects

Table 7.5.34 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction


7.5.181 Effect of construction activities, machinery

and site hoarding on views from nearbyflats.

8321LO, 8774, 8777, 9069, 9372,

LR13383

6 A preliminary assessment of likely significant townscape and

visual effects has been undertaken and is presented in thePEIR (volume 10, section 11). We are undertaking atownscape and visual impact assessment as part of ourenvironmental impact assessment that will identify any likelysignificant effects of our proposed construction activities andany mitigation required to address such effects, for examplewell-designed, visually attractive hoardings or early plantingto create visual screening where appropriate. Our draftCoCP also sets out measures to ensure that the likelysignificant townscape and visual effects of construction areminimised, for example, through protection of existing treesto BS5837 ‘Trees in Relation to Construction – Recommendations’ and the use of appropriate capped anddirectional lighting when required.

N

7.5.182 Loss of one holly tree within Waterman'sGreen - due to proximity to ventilation andcontrol kiosk.

8777 1 The current proposal would result in the loss of a single hollytree that will be replaced. We are undertaking a townscapeand visual impact assessment as part of our environmentalimpact assessment that will identify any likely significanteffects of our proposed construction activities. This will besubmitted as part of the Environmental statement in ourDCO application.

N

7.5.183 Effect of construction activities andstructures on the character of the local area.

7748, 7852, 8396, 8662, 8671, 8760,8777, 8998, 9068, 9069, 9351

11 The effect of construction activity on the character of thelocal area would be for a temporary period only. Our draft

N







Objections, issues and concerns in relation transport and access

Table 7.5.37 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction


7.5.191 The potential transport effects will be greaterthan those set out in the consultationmaterial, need a realistic amount of trafficmovement.

8774, 8895 2 As part of our PEIR (volume 10, section 12) we haveassessed the likely significant construction transport effectsof the proposed development on pedestrian and cycleroutes; bus and other public transport routes and patronage;parking; and highway layout, operation and capacity as wellas the likely significant effects on residential amenity. As

part of the assessment we have considered the likelysignificant effects of lorry and (where applicable) bargetransport, based on a methodology that has been discussedand agreed with the LBW and Transport for London (TfL).The PEIR was available as part of our phase twoconsultation.

We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. Weare preparing a full Transport assessment for submission aspart of our DCO application. The Transport assessment willconsider the cumulative effects of our works with otherstrategic developments in the local area.

N

7.5.192 Effect of construction traffic on residential

amenity.

7732, 7768, 8671, 8774 4

7.5.193 Cumulative transport effects arising fromother developments in the local area.

LBW 1

7.5.194 Disruption to the use of the Thames Pathcaused by construction works or diversion.

GLA, 9374LO, 7754, 7921, 7950, 8519,8895, 8998, 9055, 9069

10 We have carefully considered the possible options for thetemporary diversion of the Thames Path and cyclepath whiledeveloping our proposals. This route, as illustrated in the

Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper, has beenproposed because it is considered to be the best option forthe temporary diversion. Any diversions would be agreedwith the LBW and TfL. However, we will take intoconsideration the comments received to see if there are anyalternative options.

N

7.5.195 Effect of disruption, diversion or closure of

the pedestrian or cycle route.

7305 1 N

7.5.196 Construction traffic will cause trafficcongestion; query the level of congestion.Buses already back up along LowerRichmond Road and the junction won't workif new traffic is made to use it.

GLA, 8321LO, 7271, 7747, 7762, 7948,8219, 8729, 8825, 8873, 8914, 8998,9151, 9382, LR13383

15 At this site we propose to use barges to bring in and takeaway material used to fill the cofferdam. This is expected toreduce the number of lorry visits to/from this site byapproximately 45 per cent.

Road access to this site is proposed via Putney BridgeRoad, Putney High Street (A219) and Lower RichmondRoad, as illustrated in the Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper . Traffic associated with the construction ofthe temporary replacement slipway would also use the

Putney Embankment and Thames Place. It is expected thatat the peak of construction (primarily year three), an averageof 15 lorries would visit (travelling to and from) the site eachworking day, as indicated in the PEIR (volume 10, section12). In the context of existing traffic in the local area, theexpected construction traffic is not considered to besignificant.

If the transport assessment identifies any likely significant

N

7.5.197 Construction traffic will exacerbate existingtraffic congestion on Lower Richmond Roadand at the junction at Putney Bridge alongPutney Embankment.

9374LO, 7255, 7293, 7304, 7325, 7441,7832, 7839, 8219, 8396, 8640, 8662,8671, 8672, 8777, 8895, 8944, 8966,8982, 8986, 9002, 9020, 9068, 9069,9167, 9189, 9253, 9262, 9372, 9399,LR13383, LR9236

32 N

7.5.198 Proposed site access is unsuitable as a Broad.

7754, 7839, 9069, 9189 4 N

7.5.199 Alternative site access is required, forexample the direct route from the A3 viaPutney High Street (A219).

7293, 9069 2 N






7.5.200 Effect of disruption, diversion or closure ofroads on access to local amenities.

7732, 7754, 8966 3 effects arising from congestion we will develop mitigationmeasures to minimise the effects of any disruption.

We are also developing a CoCP (a draft was provided aspart of our phase two consultation), which will includerequirements for a Traffic management plan to ensure thatconstruction traffic is carefully controlled to minimise anypotential likely significant effects on the road network,including access to the local area, as well as setting outconstruction traffic routes, site access/egress points,

signage and monitoring procedures.

As part of our PEIR (volume 10, section 9) we haveassessed the likely significant construction transport effectsof the proposed development on pedestrian and cycleroutes; bus and other public transport routes and patronage;parking; and highway layout, operation and capacity as wellas the likely significant effects on residential amenity. Aspart of the assessment we have considered the likelysignificant effects of lorry and (where applicable) bargetransport, based on a methodology that has been discussedand agreed with the LBW and TfL. The PEIR was availableas part of our phase two consultation.

We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. Weare preparing a full Transport assessment for submission as

part of our DCO application. The Transport assessment willconsider the cumulative effects of our works with otherstrategic developments in the local area.

N

7.5.201 Construction traffic will affect access to thelocal area.

7732, 8458, 8966 3 N

7.5.202 Construction traffic will cause road damage. 7839 1 We do not envisage that construction traffic will cause anydamage to local roads as, where possible, we will use themajor road network which is designed and built to handlethis type of traffic. We would monitor any effects on otherroads used by our construction vehicles to ensure that anydamage that is directly attributable to the project is quicklyrepaired. Measures to ensure the restoration of roads totheir existing condition are set out in our draft CoCP thatwas published at phase two consultation.

N

7.5.203 Local roads are unsuitable for use byconstruction vehicles; busy junction and onlya B road.

GLA, 8535, 9068, 9189 4 The site has good access to the major road network which isdesigned and built to handle this type of traffic.

N

7.5.204 Effect of proposed access route to the siteon local bus services and location of busstops.

GLA 1 Based on our current proposals for this site there will be noeffect on the westbound bus stop on Lower Richmond Road.A short closure of the eastbound bus stop (for a maximum oftwo months) will be required during ductwork installationalong Lower Richmond Road footway. The effects ofconstruction traffic on bus routes and patronage will bediscussed with TfL and assessed in our Transport assessment that will be submitted with our DCO application .

N






7.5.205 Effect of construction traffic on road safety. GLA 1 We will design site accesses and operate all of ourconstruction sites to ensure that they meet design, healthand safety standards. We are developing a CoCP (a draft ofwhich was provided as part of our phase two consultation),which will include requirements for a Traffic management plan to ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlledto minimise any potential likely significant effects on the roadnetwork, including access to the local area, as well assetting out construction traffic routes, site access/egress

points, signage and monitoring procedures. There will be arequirement to ensure the proposals do not endanger safeschool access.

The transport assessment will also review data relating torecent accidents. The proposals will be subject toindependent external review by TfL and the local highwayauthority to ensure proposed highway layouts and vehiclemovement arrangements are as safe as possible.

N

7.5.206 Effect of construction traffic on pedestrian,cyclist and local resident safety.

9374LO 1 N

7.5.207 Effect of transporting materials by barge onriver navigation and commercial river users,including impact on bridges.

8219, 9068 2 We have discussed the use of the river for transportingmaterials with the PLA, which is the body responsible forregulating the use of the River Thames, and other riverusers in London. Discussions to date have concluded thatour proposals will not have a detrimental effect on rivernavigation or commercial or leisure river users. We will be

carrying out a survey of river usage and detailed riskassessments, the findings of which will be reported in ourDCO application and will inform further discussions with thePLA.

N

7.5.208 General effect of river transportation. 8450 1 N

7.5.209 Effect of works and barge movements on

river navigation and leisure river users:- even more of a danger to the rowing

training clubs based on the PutneyEmbankment

- Boat Race and regatta such as theEights Head, Fours Head and SchoolsHead.

9374LO, 7305, 7747, 7754, 7839, 7901,

8825, 8861, 8934, 9068, 9069, 9159,9167, 9262

14 N

7.5.210 You have not considered the impact oncommuters who use the River Thames.

8450, 8729 2 N

7.5.211 Effect of structures required to enable rivertransport (eg cofferdams) on river navigationand commercial river users.

LBW, 8219 2 The impact of the structure on navigation from this site is thesubject of on-going studies and a navigational riskassessment. Where this is shown to have an adverse effecton navigational safety, we will amend our proposals orprovide appropriate mitigation in agreement with the PLA.

N

7.5.212 Effect of navigation restrictions on the RiverThames on the size of barges that can beused to transport materials.

9068, 9262 2 N

7.5.213 The site is not suitable to enable the RiverThames to be used to transport materials;the tide goes out a long way here and onlypersistent dredging (which would be costly,impractical, and unsightly) would allowaccess.

9001, 9399 2 N

7.5.214 More information is needed on construction 7921, 8502 2 We carefully considered the information we made available N






transport effects such as traffic flows andthe Thames Path diversion.

at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees hadsufficient information to respond to the consultation. Theinformation was based on our preliminary transportassessment, which is still being developed, and we will bediscussing the details further with TfL and the LBW toensure that any significant transport effects are identifiedwithin the Environmental statement to be submitted as partof our DCO application.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access7.5.215 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access

Table 7.5.38 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction


7.5.216 More information is needed on transportmitigation and transport management:

- explanation for the need and use of theslipway and if it is to be more thantemporary

- can the planning schedules for lorriesand barges be made available?

7441, 8546, 8864, 8944, 8986, 9068,9069, 9486

8 Our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) setsout a range of measures to manage construction traffic andhow our contractor would operate the site, including sectionson traffic and lorry management and control, roadcleanliness, reinstatement of public rights of way as well asdetails about our working hours and the way we wouldmanage our workforce. These measures have been takeninto account in undertaking our preliminary assessment of

the likely significant effects of the project. We are currentlypreparing an Environmental statement that will assess likelysignificant effects and make recommendations for mitigation.

N

7.5.217 Mitigation proposed to address transportand access issues is inadequate/ insufficient.

9374LO, 9151 2 N

7.5.218 Adopt measures to ensure site safety andsecurity associated with construction traffic.

GLA, 9159 2 N

7.5.219 There is no guarantee that the mitigationproposed will be delivered; can we haveassurance that you will use barges?

7839, 9189 2 If a Development Consent Order is granted, we anticipate aseries of requirements (similar to planning conditions) thatwould control the development. We expect that therequirements would secure the provision of the mitigationmeasures set out in the Environmental statement that will besubmitted with the application.

N

7.5.220 Provide a suitable and safe Thames Pathdiversion with carefully designed pedestriancrossings and diversionary signage that are

agreed with TfL.

GLA 1 Our footpath diversions will be designed to meet allappropriate design and safety standards and will be agreedwith TfL and the LBW.

N

7.5.221 Provide an alternative construction trafficroute to and from the site; enforce trafficrouting to prevent the use of Putney High Stand Oxford Road.

8671 1 In light of comments on phase two consultation we areconsidering traffic routes to and from the site.

N

7.5.222 Provide temporary replacement bus stops inagreement with TfL.

GLA 1 Your comment is noted. Where necessary to relocate busstops this would be discussed with TfL.

N

7.5.223 Adopt appropriate site management 9374LO, 7448, 7449, 8861 4 As set out in our Transport project information paper, we N






measures to control construction workerparking, for example no parking should beprovided for contractors on the river front.

would require most construction staff to travel to and fromthe site by public transport. As part of the Transport assessment that will be submitted with our DCO applicationwe will consider the likely signi ficant effects of our proposedapproach and, where appropriate, provide mitigation such ason-site parking. Our contractor would also be required toagree a Transport management plan and a constructionTravel plan with TfL and the LBW.

7.5.224 Provide or encourage public transport forworkers travelling to and from the site.

7448, 8535, 8944, 9020, 9068, 9069,9151, 9207, 9486, LR13383

10 N

7.5.225 Establish traffic management plans tominimise any congestion on the local roads.

LBW, 8671, 8777, 8977 4 Our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) setsout a range of measures to manage construction traffic andhow our contractor would operate the site, including sectionson traffic and lorry management and control, roadcleanliness and reinstatement of public rights of way, as wellas details about our working hours and the way we wouldmanage our workforce. These measures have been takeninto account in our preliminary assessment of the likelysignificant effects of the project. We are currently preparingan Environmental statement that will assess likely significanteffects and are discussing the details of the CoCP andframework Travel plan with the LBW. Our contractor wouldbe required to submit a detailed site specific Traffic management plan and Travel plan to TfL and the LBW forapproval prior to commencement of works.

N

7.5.226 Restrict or limit working hours whenconstruction and related vehicles canaccess local roads.

768, 8219, 8914 3 N

7.5.227 Complete a transport assessment. LBW 1 We are preparing a Transport assessment that will besubmitted as a part of our DCO application. This will includea detailed analysis of potential access routes and anassessment of the likely significant effects of constructiontraffic on local roads, together with mitigation required tominimise disruption resulting from our site traffic. We willwork closely with TfL, the LBW, local residents and otherinterested groups to minimise the effects of trafficmovements to and from the site.

N

7.5.228 Undertake fluvial modelling to identifypotential effects of river transport andassociated structures on river flows.

PLA, 9253 2 We are undertaking fluvial modelling and preliminaryfindings have informed the design of the site. Furthermodelling will be used to refine the designs whereappropriate, and will inform the Environmental statement ,which will be part of our DCO application. The modellingstudies will also support agreements with owners of third

party assets, where relevant.

N

7.5.229 Undertake a navigational assessment toidentify potential effects of river transport onriver users and structures.

PLA, 8461, 8977, 9073, 9159 5 We are preparing a Navigational risk assessment as part ofour DCO application, the approach to which is beingdiscussed with the PLA. Preliminary discussions with thePLA have also informed the design of the site.

N

7.5.230 Use the river to transport more/allconstruction materials and spoil; lack of anybarges during phases two to four requires

PLA, GLA, LBW, 9374LO, 7448, 7449,8204, 8502, 8535, 8662, 8671, 8777,8861, 8944, 8966, 9020, 9068, 9069,

24 It is our intention to use the river to bring in and take awaythe materials required to fill the cofferdam, as detailed in ourPutney Bridge Foreshore site information paper . However, it

C






further consideration. 9151, 9207, 9253, 9486, LR13383,LR9236

is not generally practical and cost-effective to transport allmaterials by barge, therefore we would still need to transportsome materials by road. At this site, use o f barges wouldremove approximately 4,500 lorries from the road during theconstruction, as indicated in the PEIR (volume 10, section12).

7.5.231 Use the river rather than roads to transportconstruction materials and spoil.

LBW, 7729LO, 7293, 7304, 7332, 7359,8206, 8409, 8729, 8977, 9247, 9248, 9382

13 C

7.5.232 Other transport and access mitigationcomments included: investigate potential fortranshipment from sites with no proposedbarge movements to those with river access

LBW, 8934, 9068, 9253, 9486 5 As set out in our Transport project information paper , we aredetermining where our materials will come from and go to,so that the most sustainable and cost-effective transportroutes and modes can be chosen. This includesconsideration of rail, road and river transport. Our Transport strategy will set out the best transport solution for our sitesand will be submitted as part of our DCO application. Wherepractical and cost-effective, we will transport materials bybarge and additional barge movements are beingconsidered at Putney Bridge Foreshore.

C

- concerned at exactly how, where and atwhat angles the new temporary orpermanent slip way will be built

- need to straighten the angle of thetemporary slipway from the PutneyEmbankment, which could be achievedby extending the flat areas and result in

the length of the slipway extending

In light of comments made during phase two consultation weare considering alternative layouts for the temporaryslipway.

C

- Thames Water promised to pay forindependent experts hired by theforeshore group so far I am not sure ifany have been engaged

We have supported the agreed costs of independent expertsused by the Putney Working Group.

N

- Peak hour traffic lights (temporary orpermanent) are installed at the ThaiSquare, Kenilworth Court & Waterman'sGreen road junction.

We are developing a CoCP (a draft was provided as part ofour phase two consultation), which will include requirementsfor a Traffic management plan to ensure that constructiontraffic is carefully controlled to minimise any potential likelysignificant effects on the road network, including access tothe local area, as well as setting out construction trafficroutes, site access/egress points, signage and monitoringprocedures. Our transport assessment will also identify anypotential likely significant effects arising from congestion as

well as mitigation measures to minimise the effects of anydisruption, which may include the provision of a light-controlled junction.

N

7.5.233 Provide a new modern pier/slipway aslegacy of works.

8461 1 Our proposals will retain the historic slipway and create anew area of public realm in the foreshore. It is not currentlypart of our proposals to provide a permanent pier or newslipway on completion of our works bearing in mind theproximity of Putney Pier and the historic slipway.

N







Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk

Table 7.5.40 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction


7.5.241 What happens if the river bed changesduring construction - how/who will put itright?

9253 1 Your comments are noted. We are undertaking scourmodelling. The temporary works have been designed tominimise scour. Where significant scour is predicted we willcarry out preventative measures (such as placing riprap onthe river bed), and in all locations the riverbed will bemonitored and remedial works carried out if/as required.

Riprap presents a change in habitat rather than a loss ofhabitat. Recommended water mitigation measures will beprovided as part of our Environmental statement which willbe submitted with the application.

N

7.5.242 Potential need to stabilise the foreshorethrough the use of some form of retainingstructure and/or to reduce the impact ofscour through bed hardening.

EA 1 N

7.5.243 Contain site runoff. EA 1 Our draft CoCP sets out our approach to site drainage. Weexpect to discharge construction drainage in the localsewers via oil and silt interceptors.

N

7.6 Permanent design and appearance

7.6.1 This section sets out feedback comments received during the phase two consultation in relation to proposals for the permanent design and appearance of structures at Putney BridgeForeshore that are required for the operation of the tunnel when it is in use (the ‘operational phase’).

7.6.2 During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked to give their views on the identification of site specific issues that have influenced proposals for the permanent design ofPutney Bridge Foreshore (please see question 5 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation ). The first part ofquestion 5 asked respondents to select whether they ‘agree’, ‘disagree’ or ‘don’t know/unsure’. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in the tablebelow.

Table 7.6.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right issues that have influenced our permanent design for this site? (Q5)




Local authorities 0

Landowners 2 1 1


Petitions 0

Total 82 39 23 20

7.6.3 As part of the phase two consultation, respondents were also asked to comment on proposals for the permanent design and appearance of Putney Bridge Foreshore (please see question6 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation ). The first part of question 6 asked respondents to select ‘supportive’,‘opposed’ or ‘don’t know/unsure’. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in the table below.





Table 7.6.2 Please give us your views about our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site (Q6)


Total Supportive Opposed Don’t know/unsure


Local authorities 0

Landowners 2 1 1


Petitions 0Total 83 36 30 17

7.6.4 The following sections set out the comments received from respondents in connection with proposals for the permanent design and appearance of Putney Bridge Foreshore. It should benoted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments responded to the first part of questions 5 and 6.

7.6.5 Comments are organised under the following sub-headings:

supportive and neutral feedback comments

objections, issues and concerns

design suggestions.

7.6.6 Where respondents commented on matters arising during the operational phase and the management of these effects (whether through design or by other means), these comments arereported in section 7.7.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the siteTable 7.6.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site


7.6.7 The design/proposals are OK/fine/ acceptable.

LBW, 8450, 9372 3 Your comments are noted and welcomed.

7.6.8 The design/proposals are good. 7404, 7777, 8861 3

7.6.9 Proposals are an improvement on thosepresented at phase one consultation -specifically the reduced height of theventilation columns.

8587 1

7.6.10 The proposals are in keeping with the localarea.

LR9276 1

7.6.11 The proposals will enhance the local area/ provide some public benefit; the areaaround the slipway is currently rathershabby and in need of improvement.

7223, 8098 2

7.6.12 Proposals will create a new area of public/ open space.

7223, 7251, 8535, 8541 4

7.6.13 Support the inclusion of biodiverse roof/ habitat wall.

LBW 1








benefit of all concerned - the design is better than the one proposed

at Carnwath Road. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site

Table 7.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site


7.6.20 Do not support the design. 8206, 8219, 8545 3 We note your comments on the design of our proposedproject. The design follows our project-wide principles andtakes into account comments made at phase oneconsultation, on-going discussions with consultees and ourdesign review with the Design Council CABE. Our Design development report available as part of our phase twoconsultation sets out the principles that have informed ourdesign in more detail. We are continuing to develop ourdesign proposals for this site in light of feedback to phasetwo consultation and our revised proposals will be thesubject of targeted consultation.

N

7.6.21 Proposals are unattractive/ugly. 7304, 7305, 7448, 7449, 7750, 7903, 8687 7 N

7.6.22 Proposals are unimaginative/bland. 7407, 8402 2 N

7.6.23 Proposals will create an eye-sore. 7305, 7762, 8662, 9068, 9069 5 N

7.6.24 Further consideration should be given to sitedesign and layout, including throughdiscussion with the community.

8546, 8671, 8777, 8966 4 Our public consultations to date have provided theopportunity for the local community to comment on ourproposals for this site. We believe that we have undertakenan appropriate level of consultation that has provided

significant opportunity for the community to comment on ourproposals. Our staged approach to consultation also meansthat we have been able to revise our designs in response tocomments and concerns.

N

7.6.25 Images and information in the siteinformation papers are unrealistic/ misleading/incorrect. Your illustration showsthis design is flawed. The embankment doesnot have two-way traffic and in fact it is notwide enough.

7255, 7730, 8864 3 Your comments are noted. The images in the siteinformation papers provided illustrations of the permanentdesign, with further details set out in the Design development report .

The illustrations in the Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper indicate that construction traffic wouldenter and leave the site via the junction of PutneyEmbankment and Lower Richmond Road. Some temporary

junction modifications would be required to enable thesemovements. This approach has been proposed to ensurethat the effects of construction traffic is minimised on the

Putney Embankment. We appreciate that the PutneyEmbankment is a narrow carriageway. It is not proposedthat two way construction vehicle movements would occursimultaneously. Construction vehicles would not exit the sitewhile another was attempting to enter.

N

7.6.26 Proposals are not in keeping with/do notenhance and/or will have a negative effecton the character or appearance of the local

GLA, LBW, 9374LO, 7304, 7305, 7449,7839, 7985, 8519, 8662, 8966, 8977, 9207

13 We believe that the proposed development at this site willpositively contribute to the embankment and riverfrontthrough the creation of a new pedestrian area that will

C






area: - the permanent structure appears

somewhat unsympathetic to the alignmentand character of the river/embankment

- the promontory structure currentlyproposed will also be visually intrusive andhave an uncomfortable relationship withthe historic slipway

- the large design of the permanentstructure does not fit with the Victorianfrontage.

overlook the river while retaining the slipway. We arecurrently reviewing the proposal following the commentsreceived during phase two consultation, and will seek toensure that appropriate materials will be used along theembankment to ensure the character and appearance of thePutney Embankment Conservation Area and the setting oflisted buildings close to the site are preserved andenhanced.

7.6.27 Effect on Putney Embankment ConservationArea.

7448, 7449, 8966 3 N

7.6.28 Effect on listed building(s) and/or setting oflisted building(s).

8966 1 N

7.6.29 Design will have a negative effect on thecharacter and setting of the riverside/riverfrontage.

7305, 7777, 7915, 8616, 8800, 8966 6 N

7.6.30 General effect on local heritage. 8662, 8671 2 N

7.6.31 Size of structure(s) within the foreshore ofthe River Thames is too large/there should

be no structures in the foreshore. Theprotrusion into the river to be constructed onthe foreshore east of Putney Pier is the mostsignificant of the structures to remain inplace on completion of the Thames Tunnelproject works.

8623, 8966, 9068, 9069 4 As set out in our site information paper, we are proposing toconnect the Putney Bridge CSO to the main tunnel at this

site. The CSO is located under Putney Bridge. As there areno land-based sites in this area where we could carry outour works, it is necessary to carry out works in theforeshore. We have sought to rationalise our permanentworks footprint to minimise the size of the structure in theforeshore and will continue to consider whether there areopportunities to further reduce the size of the permanentstructure.

C

7.6.32 The permanent buildings and structures aretoo large/tall.

7915, 7985, 9073 3 The ventilation columns and other structures have beendesigned to meet functional and health and safetyrequirements and need to be the size that we have identifiedto ensure that the tunnel can operate efficiently. Ourapproach to design of the ventilation column has been touse its height to make a positive fea ture or local landmark.The proposed ventilation column design and position is a

subtle indication of the structure's role in improving the RiverThames and in developing the final design we will take yourcomments into consideration.

C

7.6.33 The ventilation column(s) are too high/big. 8321LO, 7750, 7985, 8165, 8671, 8966 6 C

7.6.34 The site is too small to accommodate theproposals, including requirements formaintenance without blocking traffic.

7762 1 Areas required for the works are identified in our Site selection methodology background technical paper whichsets out the minimum site size required for a CSOinterception site; our preferred site meets the requirement.We believe that our regular maintenance van would notresult in blockages to traffic. Vehicles required for our

N






periodic tunnel inspection (approximately once every tenyears) would require access to enable two cranes to bebrought to the site, which may require the temporarysuspension of on-street parking on the carriageway in thevicinity of the site. We would discuss the timing of theinspection/maintenance and any suspensions with the LBWprior to undertaking the works.

7.6.35 The permanent buildings and structures arelocated too close to residential properties/

should not be located in residential or built-up areas.

9073 1 We are aware of the proximity of commercial and residentialproperties along the Lower Richmond Road, including

Kenilworth Court, however, our preliminary environmentalimpact assessment has identified that there will be nosignificant adverse impacts on nearby residential propertiesas a result of the permanent layout and design of the site.

N

7.6.36 Effect on river navigation and commercialriver users (Thames Clippers etc).

8729 1 We have undertaken modelling to test the effect of thestructure on the flow of the river. We are liaising with thePLA to conduct a navigational risk assessment and willimplement mitigation measures identified in the assessment.

N

7.6.37 Effect on river navigation and recreationalriver users, slipway could cause waverebound and may hamper use of theslipway.

9253 1 N

7.6.38 Do not support the location/layout ofpermanent facilities (electrical kiosk, buildingon Waterman's Green, proximity of

ventilation column to scenic waterfront,businesses and residential properties,increase in amount of commercial traffic,safety issues and accidents related toincrease in river traffic) on the site.

8669, 8729, 8800, 8966, 9262 5 Your comment is noted. We are currently considering thelayout of our permanent facilities at this site. Our revisedproposals for this site will be the subject of targeted

consultation.

C

7.6.39 Loss of or effect on open space. LR(CABE), 8669, 8966, 9207, 9281 5 Our PEIR (volume 10, section 10) confirms that there wouldbe a gain of public amenity space in this location, due to theextension of the river wall into the foreshore of the RiverThames.

N

7.6.40 Effect on local recreation and leisure -cyclists, rowers. The ventilation shaft isinappropriate for an area that is used forleisure and will reduce its recreational value.

7305, 7839, 7985 3 The design of the site creates a new pedestrianised areaadjacent to the river, while maintaining access to the existingslipway. We believe that our design will enhanceopportunities for recreation and enjoyment of the river in thisarea.

N

7.6.41 Effect on property prices and the ability tosell property.

7255 1 Landowners may have a statutory entitlement to claimcompensation for the diminution of the value of theirproperty due to the construction of the tunnel. Landownersinclude the council or local housing associations that ownsocial housing in the area. In addition to the statutoryprocess we have published an Exceptional hardship procedure which sets out how we will assess claims fromhouseholders who contend that they are sufferingexceptional hardship as a result of being unable to sell theirproperty because it is potentially impacted by our currently

N






published proposals. We have also published a Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme which sets outdetails of compensation that would be available duringconstruction for damage or loss, required protectionmeasures and compulsory purchase.

7.6.42 Effect on residential amenity and quality oflife.

7255 1 We believe the final design of the site will not have anegative effect on residential amenity or quality of life.

N

7.6.43 Proposals appear to be unsustainable/are

not environmentally friendly.

8671 1 Your comments are noted and will inform the further

development of our proposals for this site.

C

7.6.44 Need more information on design proposals: - effect on trees, Alan Thornhill sculpture,

UBR stone, streetscape detailing of granitestonework at the junction of the PutneyEmbankment with the slipway down to theriver

EH, 8671, 8760, 8777, 8810, 8944, 8966,8986, 9068, 9069, 9486, LR13383

12 The current proposal would result in the loss of a single hollytree that will be replaced. The permanent electrical andcontrol kiosk has been located near the disused toilet blockon Waterman’s Green to minimise the risk of damage totrees.

We do not expect our proposals to have any effect on theAlan Thornhill sculpture or UBR stone.

Following modification of scheme-wide air managementproposals, the height of the ventilation column has beenreduced from approximately 10m to approximately 5m. Aseparate, smaller diameter ventilation column(approximately 6m high) is also proposed adjacent to PutneyBridge and is necessary to ventilate the interceptionchamber located beneath the shore arch.

Our proposals will make a positive contribution to the PutneyForeshore project by creating a new area of public realm.

Further details of architectural design and treatment will beset out in the Design and access statement which will besubmitted as a part of our DCO application.

N

- architectural expression of stacks includingsurfaces C

- height of the vent and details of thesecond vent, would it be like a lamppost? C

- interception chamber to cap an existingoutfall beneath the closest arch of PutneyBridge

N

- possible interference with the PutneyForeshore project C

- is the second vent proposed to beconstructed against Putney Bridge? C

7.6.45 Visual effect of ventilation columns andother permanent buildings and structures; itwould be hard to conceal the ventilationshaft on this site as it is a conspicuous location.

7777, 8165, 8219, 9167 4 The ventilation columns have been designed to meetfunctional and health and safety requirements and need tobe the size that we have identified to ensure that the tunnelcan operate efficiently. Our approach to designing theventilation column has been to use its height to make apositive feature or local landmark. The exact design andheight of ventilation columns has not been determined andwill be further explored as part of our on-goingenvironmental assessment work.

C

7.6.46 Design proposals cannot compensate forand/or are less important than the loss of ordisruption to the site and surrounding areaduring construction.

9372 1 Your comments are noted. N

7.6.47 The grass on Waterman’s Green is not ingood condition and can smell and wouldneed to be replaced.

9382 1 Your comments are noted we will consider replacing thegrass on Waterman’s Green as part of our proposals.

C

7.6.48 Other negative comments: 8219, 8729, 9486 3 A ventilation column adjacent to Putney Bridge would be N






- attachment of second column to PutneyBridge necessary to ventilate the interception chamber located

beneath the shore arch.

The new river wall would have timber-piled fenders, whichwould complement the existing handrail and edge of theslipway. A smooth design transition between the existingand new river walls would also serve to prevent theaccumulation of river debris and other flotsam. However, weare considering our proposals for this site and how theforeshore structure relates to the slipway. This is a matter

that will be the subject of targeted consultation.The relationship of our proposed structure with the slipway isa matter that will be the subject of further designdevelopment for this site. Details will be available as part ofour targeted consultation.

- a metre high wall juxtaposed with theslipway is unacceptable. C

7.6.49 Opposed to/not commenting on the designbecause the wrong site has been selected.

8587, 9281 2 Your comments are noted. N

Design suggestions

Table 7.6.5 Design suggestions

Ref Design suggestions Respondent ID No. Our response Outcome

7.6.50 Design should incorporate appropriatescreening.

9068, 9069 2 We believe that the proposed development at this site willpositively contribute to the embankment and riverfront

through the creation of a new pedestrian area that willoverlook the river while retaining the slipway. The DesignCouncil CABE review stressed the importance of reflectingthe simplicity and quality of the setting through a ‘simple,orthogonal geometry’ design.

N

7.6.51 Design should provide suitable/more/ adequate landscaping and planting.

7325, 7407 2 The functional requirements of the tunnel and interceptionchamber mean that the permanent structure contains a lot ofinfrastructure meaning that there are very limitedopportunities for planting at this site. However, we willconsider your comments to see whether it is possible toinclude more planting as part of the scheme.

C

7.6.52 Improve the Thames Path as part ofproposals.

GLA 1 Our proposals at this site will improve the Thames Path as apart of the reinstatement works and through the creation of anew area of riverside.

N

7.6.53 Proposals should provide some publicbenefit.

7448, 7449, 8966 3 The scheme has been designed to create a new area ofpublic space at a point where the existing PutneyEmbankment is quite narrow. We believe that the proposedscheme will enhance the area and create a new area forleisure and recreation use for the public benefit. We will takeyour comments into account in revisiting our proposals,including investigation of opportunities to enhance existingfootpaths and cycleways.

N

7.6.54 Proposals should incorporate public/ open/ green space:

- there is a token gesture of a few benches,but these could be improved. Is there areason why it has to be squared off at thebridge end and not be parkland?

GLA, 7325, 7448, 7684, 8206 5 C






- location and design of the ventilation plantshould ensure that any noise/odourimpacts on nearby residents are minimised

We will also consider how our project affects the slipway asa part of the reconsideration of our design for this site.

We are unable to use the disused toilets as these are ownedby a third party who has developed alternative proposals fortheir use.

We note that lighting at this site would be limited to ensurethat we create a safe environment. We will continue toexplore options for permanent lighting at this site and willdiscuss our proposals with the LBW.

We do not propose to create a passageway beneath PutneyBridge.

N

- an improved Thames Path and publicrealm should be re-instated and suitablere-instatement of the river accessfacilities/slipway should be providedfollowing liaison with river users.

N

7.6.55 Proposals should enhance the local area. 7449 1 N

7.6.56 Design should incorporate café facilities ifpossible linking the 'Rocket' restaurantdevelopment and incorporating the disusedWCs.

7448, 7449, 7684 3

7.6.57 Design should include:

- public toilets

7448, 7449, 7839, 8519, 8671, 8777 6 N

- facility to increase the use of the space C

- safe riverside passageway connectingboth sides of the bridge using tunnels

C

- lighting features C

- preserve the Victorian slipway and the

wooden posts there, just East of Putneypier

C

- create a safe passage connecting theriverside path at both sides of the bridge.

N

7.6.58 Proposals should be in keeping with andblend into the character of the local area/ minimise visual impact.

7901, 8623, 8671, 8777, 8944, 8986,9068, 9069, LR9236

9 We believe that the proposed development at this site willpositively contribute to the embankment and riverfrontthrough the creation of a new pedestrian area that willoverlook the river while retaining the slipway. We arecurrently reviewing the proposal following the commentsreceived during phase two consultation, and will seek toensure that appropriate materials will be used along theembankment to ensure the character and appearance of thePutney Embankment Conservation Area and the setting oflisted buildings close to the site are preserved and

enhanced.

N

7.6.59 Ventilation columns, buildings and otherstructures should be underground/hidden/ as low as possible.

9068, 9069 2 The ventilation columns and other structures have beendesigned to meet functional and health and safetyrequirements and need to be the size that we have identifiedto ensure that the tunnel can operate efficiently. Ourapproach to designing the ventilation columns has been touse its height to make a positive feature or local landmark.The proposed ventilation column design and position is asubtle indication of the structure's role in improving the River

N

7.6.60 Reduce the height/size of the ventilationcolumn(s).

7901, 8760 2 N

7.6.61 Reduce the height of permanent buildingsand structures.

LR13383, LR9236 2 N






7.6.62 Reduce the size of permanent buildings andstructures.

8502, 8986, 9207 3 Thames and in developing the final design we will take yourcomments into consideration.

C

7.6.63 Minimise/reduce the size of the area of thepermanent site.

7901 1 The layout and size of the site have been optimised for bothfunctional and aesthetic purposes. The scale of theproposed structure projecting into the foreshore has beenreduced in size and width since phase one consultation. Thesize of the permanent platform proposed is now muchsmaller in scale and protrudes less into the river than initiallyproposed.

C

7.6.64 Reduce the area of hard standing. 8760 1 The shape and treatment of the permanent hardstandingarea is optimised for both functional and aesthetic purposes,while ensuring that encroachment into the river is minimised.Comments received by the GLA and the Desgin CouncilCABE stated that an improved public realm should bereinstated following completion of the construction activities.The permanent platform area is designed as a useablepotential public space with linear granite paving, which is inkeeping with the cobbled treatment of the slipway, but with amore accessible finish.

C

7.6.65 Design should allow the site to be used forother purposes once works associated withthe Thames Tunnel project are complete.

LBW 1 Our proposals incorporate a new area of public realm, whichwould enhance this area in relation to the uses adjacent tothe Putney Embankment. The potential public space wouldbe created adjacent to Waterman’s Green, which may

improve the Green’s quality and create a more usablespace.

N

7.6.66 Final site design should be informed by localconsultation/available for comment.

8671, 8777, 8861, 8966 4 Our public consultations to date have provided theopportunity for the local community to comment on ourproposals for this site. We believe that we have undertakenan appropriate level of consultation that has providedsignificant opportunity for the community to comment on ourproposals. Our staged approach to consultation also meansthat we have been able to revise our designs in response tocomments and concerns.

N

7.6.67 Improve or create new footpaths and cycleways as part of the design, includingriverside access and safe passage underPutney Bridge.

8669, 8966, LR9236 3 The design of the site creates a new pedestrianised areaadjacent to the river, while maintaining access to the existingslipway. We believe that our design will enhanceopportunities for recreation and enjoyment of the river in this

area, however we do not propose a new footpath underPutney Bridge.

N

7.6.68 Proposals should use high quality materialsand finishes, in keeping with surroundings,using non-slip granite and concrete, withWaterman's Green remaining as grass.

EH, 9374LO, 8402, 8519, 8623, 8671,8729, 8760, 8777, 8944, 8966, 8986,9068, 9069

14 Your comments are noted and will be taken intoconsideration, where possible, in developing our proposalsfor this site. We believe that a number of these matters arealready addressed by our proposals for this site. We are notproposing to hold a design competition. Please refer tosection 3 of the Design development report for further

C

7.6.69 The final design should be distinctive and ofarchitectural merit/iconic/visually attractive.

8402 1 N






7.6.70 Proposals should incorporate theopportunity for a design competition.

8671, 8777, 8861, 8966 4 information. However, we are regularly seeking advice onour emerging design proposals with statutory stakeholdersand local interest groups, and have held two design reviewswith the Design Council CABE.

N

7.6.71 Proposals should create something for thefuture (legacy).

LBW, 8409, 8777 3 C

7.6.72 Design should include recreational facilities: - boat stop or ladder with vertical mooring

rails on the wall GLA, 8161, 8944, 9068, 9069, 9205, 9253 7 The PLA, Environment Agency and the LBW have all

requested that the temporary slipway be removed when theconstruction works are completed. The existing slipwaywould be available for river access during operation.Therefore we do not propose to the retain the temporaryslipway as a permanent feature, create any new publicmoorings or dredge the foreshore.

N

- permanent public moorings N

- reconstructed and improved slipway at theBarn Elms boathouse N

- dredge the foreshore in front of permanentplatform to assist with boat mooring N

- leave the slipway as a permanent feature N

- suitable re-instatement of the river accessfacilities/slipway should be providedfollowing liaison with river users.

N

7.6.73 Specific design amendments include: - Putney drawdock needs to be retained

LR(CABE), EA, GLA, PLA, LBW, 7684,8165, 8409, 8511, 8535, 8616,8623, 8669, 8729, 8944, 8986,9068, 9069, 9253, 9262, 9382,9486, LR13383, LR9236,LR9491

25 Putney drawdock will be retained and would be available forriver access during operation.

N

- railings, interpretation panels Your comment is noted. We are currently considering the

layout of our permanent facilities at this site as well as theuse of railings and other items of street furniture whichwould contribute to the public realm.

C

- electrical connection protected againstwater C

- move the cabinet onto the green and thecolumn by bridge N

- include a fountain with seating N

- consider opportunities for use ofspaces/vaults under bridge/use disusedgentlemen's toilets

The vaults under the bridge are owned by a third party whois developing proposals for their future use. Therefore we donot consider this area available for use.

N

- locate the permanent structures nearPutney Wharf where there are alreadymodern structures

The permanent structures need to be located close to ourCSO interception works and within the area indentified forthe temporary construction works and therefore cannot belocated on the east side of Putney Bridge under the currentproposals.

N

- consider making the area a no smokingzone We note that we do not have the authority to make the new

foreshore area a no smoking zone.N

- floating pontoon along the edge of thepermanent platform Our proposals have been developed in consultation with the

PLA, Environment Agency and the LBW and we do notpropose to the create any new public moorings at the site.

N

- include reed beds in the foreshorestructures Ecological improvement opportunities for both mitigation and

enhancement purposes will be set out in the Environmental C






- bat nesting opportunities on external walls statement that will be submitted with our DCO appli cation. C

- to minimise permanent encroachment intothe Thames and reduce adverse hydrauliceffects, alternatives exist to: a) Implementa temporary piled ramp instead of theinfilled slipway adjacent to PutneyEmbankment; b) Locate the CSO shaftimmediately adjacent to Waterman’s

Green; c) With the location of the CSObroadly as shown, reduce the length, widthand transition curve with the PutneyEmbankment; and d) Revise the layout tocreate a bullnose to the encroachment

The layout and size of the site has been optimised for bothfunctional and aesthetic purposes. The scale of theproposed structure projecting into the foreshore has beenreduced in size and width since phase one consultation. Thesize of the permanent platform proposed is now muchsmaller in scale and protrudes less into the river than initiallyproposed. The CSO shaft has been located away fromWaterman's Green to avoid our permanent structuresimpacting upon the public drawdock.

C

- location and design of the ventilation plantshould ensure that any noise/odourimpacts on nearby residents are minimised

We are aware of the proximity of residential properties to ourpermanent facilities. Our preliminary environmental impactassessment has identified that there will be no significantadverse impacts on nearby residential properties as a resultof the permanent layout and design of the site.

N

- permanent pedestrian walkway connectingto steps on downstream side of bridge The design of the site creates a new pedestrianised area

adjacent to the river, while maintaining access to the existingslipway. We do not propose a new pedestrian accessdownstream of the bridge.

N

- promontory should be moved westwards Your comment is noted. We are currently considering thelayout of our permanent facilities at this site. C- form would benefit from further refinement

to ensure that it enhances its setting inboth visual and functional terms

C

- explore a more formal means ofterminating the northern end to moresuccessfully address the relationship withLower Richmond Road

C

- ventilation column used to signpost andpromote the Thames Tunnel project. Our approach to designing the ventilation column has been

to use its height to make a positive feature or locallandmark. The proposed ventilation column design andposition is a subtle indication of the structure's role inimproving the River Thames and in developing the finaldesign we will take your comments into consideration.

C

7.6.74 Design should incorporate public art. 8219 1 Your comments are noted and will be taken intoconsideration in developing our proposals for this site.

C

7.6.75 Designs should be environmentally friendly/ sustainable and incorporate SuDS wherepossible.

8944, 9068, 9069, LR9491 4 We agree that our development should be environmentallyfriendly and will determine the practicality of installing SuDSat this site.

C

7.6.76 Other design mitigation included:

- UBR stone must be protected GLA, LBW, 8861, 9382 3 We do not expect our proposals to have any effect on the

UBR stone.C






- explore opportunities for horizontal fenders Your comments are noted and will be taken intoconsideration in developing our proposals for this site.

C

- grass in poor condition and would need tobe replaced

N

- some indication has been given to theafter use of construction sites, theseaspects should be kept under review toreflect needs and opportunities as they

appear on completion of works, which insome cases will be 10 years from now.

N

7.6.77 Existing trees on the site (including hollybushes) should be retained/ protected. Alocal historian has researched the subjectand believes the hollies were planted in1905 along with the ones in WandsworthPark.

8519, 8671, 8944, 8966, 8986, 9068,9069, 9253, 9382

9 The current proposal would result in the loss of a single hollytree that would be replaced. There would be a requirementfor pruning of some trees where branches extend into theconstruction site. The approach to pruning and allsafeguarding measures to protect the trees duringconstruction would be undertaken as specified in BritishStandard BS5837, where practicable and based onconsultation with the LBW tree officer. The permanentelectrical and control kiosk has been located near thedisused toilet block on Waterman ’s Green to minimise therisk of damage to trees. Our draft CoCP sets out how wewould protect existing trees during construction.

N

7.7 Management of operational effects7.7.1 This section sets out feedback comments received during the phase two consultation in relation to the management of operational effects at Putney Bridge Foreshore. This includes the

identification of site specific issues associated with the site once i t is operational and proposals to address the effects of these issues.

7.7.2 During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with Putney Bridge Foreshore once the site isoperational and the ways to address these issues (see questions 7a and 7b of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation ). The first part of question 7a and 7b asked respondents to select ‘agree’, ‘disagree’ or ‘don’t know/unsure’. Where responde nts completed this part of the question, the resultsare set out in tables 7.7.1 and 7.7.2. Tables 7.7.3 to 7.7.33 detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedbackcomments confirmed whether the right issues and the ways to address those issues had been identified.

Table 7.7.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q7a)




Local authorities 0

Landowners 2 1 1


Petitions 0

Total 80 51 16 13








site/indicate that this site should not havebeen selected.

7.7.6 Other operational issues include:

- insufficient information has beenprovided on the alternatives

- concur with other suggestions.

8869 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.

Further information regarding alternative sites can be foundin the Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper ,Phase two scheme development report appendix D and theSite selection background technical paper and Site selection methodology paper .

N

General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues

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

Table 7.7.5 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation


7.7.7 Measures to address potential issues aresatisfactory.

7404, 9253 2 Your comment is noted and welcomed.

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

Table 7.7.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation


7.7.8 Measures to address potential issues areunsatisfactory/unconvincing.

8760 1 The measures set out in the Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper are intended to provide a broad overviewof how we intend to address potential issues associated withthe site. Further information can be found in the PEIR (volume 10).

Measures proposed to address potential likely significanteffects are being further developed and considered as partof the environmental impact assessment. The findings of theassessment, together with any recommendations formitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO appli cation.

N

Air quality and odourSupportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour

Table 7.7.7 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour during operation


7.7.9 Proposals will ensure that odour issatisfactorily managed.

GLA 1 Your support is noted and welcomed.

7.7.10 The site is already a busy road so the 8541 1






additional impact on air quality will bereduced in comparison to alternatives.

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

Table 7.7.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during operation


7.7.11 It is not clear what the scale of air qualityand odour effects will be, the assessment to

date is very vague.

8402, 8587 2 Our PEIR (volume 10, section 4) sets out the findings of apreliminary qualitative assessment of likely significant odour

effects which identifies a negligible effect arising fromoperation of the tunnel. A further quantitative assessment oflikely significant effects will be presented in theEnvironmental statement that will be submitted with ourDCO application. The assessment methodologies are basedon best practice and were agreed with the LBW.

N

7.7.12 Dust and dirt arising from operationalactivities.

8402 1 We do not anticipate that any dust would arise from theoperation of the tunnel or from general inspection andmaintenance activities at this site.

N

7.7.13 Effect of odour arising from operation of thetunnel.

EH, 8321LO, 7303, 7852, 7993, 8402,8587, 8760, 8966, 9068, 9069, 9167,9486, LR13383

14 Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects ofodour associated with operation of the tunnel are set out inour PEIR (volume 10, section 4), which concludes that whenthe tunnel is operational no significant effects are predictedin relation to odour. The ventilation facilities would be

designed to minimise the release of untreated air from thetunnel system and approximately 99 per cent of the timeduring the average year air released from the tunnel wouldbe treated and would not have any odours. Thisarrangement meets the Environment Agency’s odourcriteria. When the tunnel is empty the ventilation systemwould be operated so as to maintain a pressure lower thanatmospheric pressure, which would prevent air from leavingthe tunnel. This would be achieved by extracting air atspecific active ventilation facilities which are currentlyproposed at our sites at Acton Storm Tanks, Carnwath RoadRiverside, Greenwich Pumping Station and Abbey MillsPumping Station where the air would be treated beforebeing released through a high ventilation column. When thetunnel fills with sewage the air path throughout the tunnel

would gradually be lost and air would be displaced by therising sewage levels. This air would pass through passivefilters where it would be treated before being released.

N

7.7.14 Effect of odour on residential amenity. 9374LO, 7205, 7930, 8662, 8800, 8944,9068, 9069

8 N

7.7.15 More information is needed on air qualityand odour effects.

8760 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 includedconsultation documents such as our draft CoCP and PEIR .

N


R f Obj i i d R d ID N O O





We are confident therefore that the information we haveprovided is sufficient. Further assessment of likelysignificant effects will be undertaken as part of our on-goingenvironmental impact assessment work and this will bereported in the Environmental statement to be submittedwith our DCO application.

7.7.16 General air pollution effects. 8402, 8662, 8760 3 We have completed a preliminary environmentalassessment of the effects of the proposed development,which is set out in our PEIR (volume 10, section 4) which

considers the likely significant effects of our construction inrespect of air quality, dust, odour, noise and vibration, whichsingularly or collectively might be classed as 'pollution'. A fullassessment of potential 'pollution' will be presented in theEnvironmental statement that we will submit with our DCOapplication. Our compliance with the applicable regulatoryregime will be monitored by the LBW.

N

7.7.17 Effect on air quality arising from theoperation of the tunnel.

7354, 7930, 8662, 9167, 9262 5 Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects ofair pollution associated with operation of the tunnel are setout in our PEIR (volume 10, section 4), which concludes thatwhen the tunnel is operational no significant effects arepredicted in relation to air pollution. We do not anticipate anyair pollution as we have developed an Air management plan to ensure the tunnel would be operated in such a way as tocontrol odour. At this site we are proposing the use of apassive ventilation system that would draw air through thetunnel before cleaning it using carbon filters that wouldabsorb possible odour before air leaves the ventilationequipment. After treatment, air from the tunnel would bedischarged via a ventilation column, further mitigating anypossible impacts on local air quality.

N

7.7.18 Other air quality and odour issue: for howmany hours a month will it be emittingtreated and non-treated vapours?

LR13383 1 It is proposed that in a typical year air would be exhaustedfor 12 hours in total, that is, an average of one hour permonth. 100 per cent of the air would be treated.

N

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

Table 7.7.9 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation


7.7.19 Mitigation proposed to address the issues issatisfactory, for example all air pipes musthave odour controls on them.



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




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

Table 7.7.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the ef fects of air quality and odour during operation


7.7.20 More information is needed on mitigation,including for how many hours a month will itemit treated and non-treated vapours?

8944 1 Details of proposed mitigation measures were set out in thePEIR (volume 10, section 4) for the site as part of our phasetwo consultation alongside the operational proposalsoutlined in the Air management plan . It is proposed that in atypical year air would be exhausted for 12 hours in total, thatis, an average of one hour per month. 100 per cent of the air

would be treated.More details of the likely significant effects of operation onair quality and odour will be set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application,including recommendations for mitigation.

N

7.7.21 No guarantee that the mitigation technologyproposed will be delivered or function asstated.

7255 1 The proposed odour control units will contain activatedcarbon filters. This is standard technology used worldwideand in the UK. For example, the foul sewage pumpingstation for the Olympic Park in Stratford has just installedthis type of odour control system.

If a Development Consent Order is granted, we anticipate aseries of requirements (similar to planning conditions) thatwould control the development. We expect that therequirements would secure the provision of the mitigationmeasures set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with the application.

The tunnel ventilation system has a number of redundanciesbuilt in and works as a complete system so that, in theunlikely event of a failure at one site, the required throughput of air can be maintained by increased ventilationelsewhere on the system. The systems will be monitoredand replacements for elements such as the passive filtersplanned in advance of their life's end.

N

7.7.22 Install equipment to monitor air quality andodour effects.

GLA 1 We propose to use air quality monitoring equipment duringoperations, as set out in the Air management plan .

N


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment

7.7.23 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the historic environment during operation.Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment issues

Table 7.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment issues during operation


7.7.24 General effect on local heritage arising fromthe permanent maintenance and operationof the site.

7205, 8777, 9486 3 The operational site layout is provided in our Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper, which also includesvisualisations of the completed project. Our Design project

N


Ref Objections issues and concerns Respondent ID No Our response Outcome





7.7.25 Permanent effect on the conservation area. 7205, 8777, 9486 3 information paper sets out our overall approach to design,including respecting each site's individual context andsurroundings. Our approach to design has sought topreserve and enhance the setting of heritage assets atPutney Bridge Foreshore.

However, we recognise the sensitivities of the area and theimportance of protecting the character of the PutneyEmbankment Conservation Area. We will continue todevelop our designs of the permanent structures and

landscaping to ensure the effects of our works on the settingof historic assets is minimised. An assessment of likelysignificant effects on the setting of historic assets will beprovided as a part of our Environmental statement that willbe submitted with our DCO application. The operational sitelayout will be a matter for targeted consultation, which will beundertaken on our proposals for this site.

N

7.7.26 Permanent effect on listed building(s) orstructure(s).

9486 1 N

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

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

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

Table 7.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during operation


7.7.28 Locate permanent structures to minimisetheir effect on the appearance and setting oflocal heritage assets.

8777 1 The operational site layout is provided in our Putney Bridge Foreshore site information paper , which also includesvisualisations of the completed project. Our Design project information paper sets out our overall approach to design,including respecting each site's individual context andsurroundings. Our approach to design has sought topreserve and enhance the setting of heritage assets atPutney Bridge Foreshore.

However, we recognise the sensitivities of the area and theimportance of protecting the character of the PutneyEmbankment Conservation Area. We will continue todevelop our designs of the permanent structures andlandscaping to ensure the effects of our works on the settingof historic assets is minimised. This is a matter that will bethe subject of targeted consultation for this site.

An assessment of likely significant effects on the setting ofhistoric assets would be provided as a part of ourEnvironmental statement that will be submitted with ourDCO application.

C

7.7.29 Ensure that permanent design andlandscaping is sensitive to and in keepingwith the appearance and setting of localheritage assets.

8777 1 N

Land quality and contamination

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

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


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




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

Table 7.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination during operation


7.7.31 There is potential for contamination withinthe site boundary.

8402 1 As set out in the PEIR (volume 10, section 8) baselineconditions at the site have been assessed through theanalysis of available desk-based data, a site walkover andpreliminary intrusive ground investigations. A preliminaryassessment of the likely significant operational effects of thedevelopment identifies that it is not likely to result in

significant effects. Design measures incorporated into theconstruction phase (investigation, soil and groundwater asnecessary) as well as the placement of newly builthardstanding mean that no impacts on the public from pre-existing contamination in the completed development arepredicted.

N

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

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

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

7.7.33 No objections, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination during operation.

Lighting

7.7.34 No feedback comments were received in relation to lighting during operation.


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (aquatic)

7.7.35 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during operation.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic)

Table 7.7.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during operation


7.7.36 Encroachment into the River Thamesforeshore.

7777 1 By intercepting the CSO there would be improvements inwater quality, and the improvements to the seweragesystem capacity would result in far fewer low dissolvedoxygen events and therefore fewer mass fish mortalities.

As part of our PEIR (volume 10, section 5) we haveassessed the likely significant operational effects of theproposed development on aquatic ecology. The PEIR considers the effects on the foreshore and River Thamesand concludes the permanent structure would have a lownegative impact given its small extent and that theimprovements to river water quality would be a positiveeffect of the scheme. We acknowledge that this is apreliminary assessment. We are preparing a full aquaticecology assessment for submission within theEnvironmental statement as part of our DCO application,

N

7.7.37 Effect on foreshore habitat(s), although ofpoor species diversity.

LR9491 1 N

7.7.38 Effect on river habitat(s). 8662 1 N







which will also consider the likely significant effects of thepermanent structure on river flow and fish movements.

We have sought to reduce the amount of foreshore thatwould be lost, however, this needs to be balanced with theengineering requirements of our works and the effect on thelocal townscape in this location. The loss of habitat in theforeshore contributes to an overall loss arising from theproject across its in-river sites. Compensation for the loss ofhabitat is being considered at a project-wide level and the

ecological improvement opportunities for mitigation andenhancement will be set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic)

7.7.39 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during operation.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic)

Table 7.7.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during operation


7.7.40 Provision of compensation habitat, includingrefuges for fish and other species.

LR9491 1 By intercepting the CSO there would be improvements inwater quality, and the improvements to the seweragesystem capacity would result in far fewer low dissolvedoxygen events and therefore fewer mass fish mortalities.

As part of our PEIR (volume 10, section 5) we haveassessed the likely significant operational effects of theproposed development on aquatic ecology. The PEIR considers the effects on the foreshore and River Thamesand concludes the permanent structure would have a lownegative impact given its small extent and that theimprovements to river water quality would be a positiveeffect of the scheme. We acknowledge that this is apreliminary assessment. We are preparing a full aquaticecology assessment for submission within theEnvironmental statement as part of our DCO application,which will also consider the likely significant effects of thepermanent structure on river flow and fish movements.

We have sought to reduce the amount of foreshore thatwould be lost, however, this needs to be balanced with the

engineering requirements of our works and the effect on thelocal townscape in this location. The loss of habitat in theforeshore contributes to an overall loss arising from theproject across its in-river sites. Compensation for the loss ofhabitat is being considered at a project-wide level and theecological improvement opportunities for mitigation andenhancement will be set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.

N

7.7.41 Given the accumulative land-take of a series

of structures along the River Thames, thereshould be considerations to securesignificant positive gains for fish and otheraquatic species.

LR9491 1 N







Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial)

Table 7.7.16 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation


7.7.42 Support efforts to minimise the long-termimpacts to biodiversity and secureimprovements.

LR9491 1 Your comments are welcomed and noted.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial)

Table 7.7.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation


7.7.43 Permanent loss of trees. 9486 1 The current proposal would result in the loss of a single hollytree that would be replaced. There would be a requirementfor pruning of some trees where branches extend into theconstruction site. The approach to pruning and allsafeguarding measures to protect the trees duringconstruction would be undertaken as specified in BritishStandard BS5837, where practicable and based onconsultation with the LBW tree officer. The permanentelectrical and control kiosk has been located near thedisused toilet block on Waterman’s Green to minimise therisk of potential damage to trees.

N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial)

7.7.44 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial)

Table 7.7.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation


7.7.45 Trees must be retained/protected duringconstruction.

LBW 1 The current proposal would result in the loss of a single hollytree that would be replaced. There would be a requirementfor pruning of some trees where branches extend into theconstruction site. The approach to pruning and allsafeguarding measures to protect the trees duringconstruction would be undertaken as specified in BritishStandard BS5837, where practicable and based onconsultation with the LBW tree officer. The permanentelectrical and control kiosk has been located near thedisused toilet block on Waterman’s Green to minimise therisk of potential damage to trees.

N

7.7.46 Provision of compensation habitat; putnesting and roosting boxes up.

7404 1 As stated in para 6.1.3 of our PEIR (volume 10, section 6),significant operational effects on terrestrial ecology as aresult of the tunnel operation and the infrequentmaintenance visits are not anticipated therefore this has notbeen assessed. A full assessment will be presented in our

N







Environmental statement that will be submitted with ourDCO application. This will consider the effects of thedevelopment based on a methodology set out in our PEIR .

7.7.47 Locate permanent works within the site toavoid sensitive and designated areas.

LR9491 1 All permanent works would be located within the defined siteboundary and will be positioned to reduce likely significanteffects upon the historic public drawdock, Grade II listedPutney Bridge and the setting of the Grade II* listed StMary's Church.

N

7.7.48 Undertake an environmental impactassessment.

8502 1 As stated in para 6.1.3 of our PEIR (volume 10, section 6),significant operational effects on terrestrial ecology as aresult of the tunnel operation and the infrequentmaintenance visits are not anticipated therefore this has notbeen assessed. A full assessment will be presented in ourEnvironmental statement that will be submitted with ourDCO application. This will consider the effects of thedevelopment based on a methodology set out in our PEIR .

N

7.7.49 Maximise opportunities to enhancebiodiversity through an effective mitigationpackage.

LR9491 1 N

Noise and vibration

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to noise and vibration

7.7.50 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to noise and vibration during operation.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration

Table 7.7.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during operation


7.7.51 General noise effects arising from thepermanent operation and maintenance ofthe site.

8402, 8458 2 Our PEIR (volume 10, section 9) sets out a preliminaryassessment of the likely significant operational noise andvibration effects of the proposed project. No significanteffects were identified, subject to appropriate noise controlmeasures for equipment to ensure the targets in BS4142 aremet. Therefore we do not expect any effect on occupiers orusers of adjacent or nearby properties, businesses orfacilities, or on any sensitive structures or equipment. TheEnvironmental statement that will be submitted with ourDCO application will provide a full assessment of likelysignificant noise and vibration effects together with anyrecommendations for mitigation.

N

7.7.52 General vibration effects arising from thepermanent operation and maintenance ofthe site.

8402, 8458 2 N

7.7.53 Operational noise, including potential fornoise from the kiosk on Waterman's Green.

9068, 9069 2 N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration7.7.54 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during operation.

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

7.7.55 No objections, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during operation.






p p

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation open space and recreation

Table 7.7.20 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to open space and recreation during operation


7.7.56 Permanent loss of open space isacceptable.

8541 1 Your comment is noted.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation open space and recreation

Table 7.7.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during operation


7.7.57 Permanent loss of public open space isunacceptable.

8662, 9486 2 Our PEIR (volume 10, section 11) confirms that there wouldbe a gain of public amenity space in this location, due to theextension of the river wall into the foreshore of the RiverThames.

N

7.7.58 Effect on river navigation and recreationalriver users.

13476 1 We have discussed the use of the river for transportingmaterials with the PLA, which is the body which isresponsible for regulating the use of the River Thames, andother river users. We do not believe that our proposals willaffect the Boat Race. We will be carrying out a survey ofriver usage and detailed risk assessments, the findings ofwhich will be reported in our DCO application and will informfurther discussions with the PLA.

N

7.7.59 Effect on the Boat Race and other riverevents.

9486 1 N

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

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

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

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

Planning and development

7.7.62 No feedback comments were received in relation to planning and development during operation.

Socio-economic

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

Table 7.7.22 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects during operation


7.7.63 Supportive/general comment: support theproject provided that every effort can bemade to minimise inconveniencing to thepublic in operational state.

8224 1 Your comment is noted. We do not believe that our completed projectwould cause any inconvenience for the local community.


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




Table 7.7.23 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during operation


7.7.64 Effect on property prices. 8321LO, 9068, 9069 3 Once the site works are complete we do not believe that thepermanent works at this site would affect the image of thearea; the ability to sell or rent property; residential amenity;quality of life or health. As set out in our PEIR (volume 10), our scoping assessment (agreed with the LBW) concludedthat there would be no significant operational effects arising

from the site.

N

7.7.65 Effect on quality of life causinginconvenience to many, many people.

7815 1 N

7.7.66 Effect on human health; no mention ofhealth concerns for residents with asthmaetc.

8774 1 N

7.7.67 Effect of the operational site on residentialamenity.

7930 1 N

7.7.68 Proximity of the operational site toresidential properties.

7815 1 N

7.7.69 Effect of site maintenance and operation onthe local community.

8998 1 As set out in our site information paper, vehicles required forsite maintenance would normally comprise a small vanevery three to six months. Periodically (approximately everyten years) there would be a more detailed site inspection,which would require more vehicles, including two cranes.Given the infrequency of these inspections and the lownumber of vehicles involved it is not considered that therewould be any effect.

N

7.7.70 Disturbance from future site maintenanceactivities.

LR9236 1 N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects

7.7.71 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during operation.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects

Table 7.7.24 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during operation


7.7.72 Use an alternative site not actively used bylocals and non-locals. Will save constructiontime, money and affect fewer people.

7305 1 Please refer to our response at paragraph 7.3.15 above. N

7.7.73 Provide alternative business premises. LR13383 1 As we do not anticipate any likely significant operationalsocio-economic effects we do not believe that it would benecessary to provide compensation or business relocations.

N

7.7.74 Provide appropriate compensation. 9068, 9069 2 N

7.7.75 Other socio-economic mitigation

suggestions: if you are to use this space youshould give back a family friendly café to thepublic.

7449 1 We are currently considering our design proposals for this

site and will take into consideration suggestions for facilitiesthat should be provided as a part of the project.

N


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to structures and utilities

7.7.76 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to structures and utilities during operation.


Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities




Table 7.7.25 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during operation


7.7.77 Structural damage to residential buildingsarising from vibrations from operationaltraffic.

7255 1 As set out in our site information paper, we expect to visitthe site approximately once every three to six months tocarry out inspections and maintenance of the ventilation andbelow ground equipment, and once every ten years to carryout a major internal inspection. This is likely to involve a visitby staff in a small van, or vehicles carrying two mobile

cranes during the major internal inspection. We therefore donot anticipate any risk of structural damage to residentialbuildings from our operational traffic.

N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities

7.7.78 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities effects during operation.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities

Table 7.7.26 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during operation


7.7.79 Structural monitoring of other structures,including river walls.

8986 1 Our Settlement project information paper providesinformation on our approach to controlling and limitingground movement, which can cause settlement, associatedwith construction of the tunnel. It is acknowledged that

construction of the tunnel will cause some small movementsin the ground, the level of which will depend on a range offactors including the size and depth of construction works aswell as existing ground conditions. The use of moderntunnelling methods and the depth of our tunnels, which aregenerally much deeper than most other tunnels underLondon, minimise the likelihood of any potential groundmovement.

We are assessing the potential likely significant effects ofground movement in advance of the works and, wherenecessary, will carry out protective measures. We will alsomonitor actual ground movement during and after thetunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted.We will also carry out a defects survey on buildings locatedover, or close to, our tunnels and worksites where we

consider this necessary. The method used for assessingsettlement is similar to that used for the Channel Tunnel RailLink, the Jubilee Line Extension, and Crossrail.


N








development. We expect that the requirements wouldsecure the provision of the mitigation measures set out inthe Environmental statement that will be submitted with theapplication.

Transport and access

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access

Table 7.7.29 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access during operation


7.7.86 Support proposed permanent site access. 8934 1 Your support is noted and welcomed.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access

Table 7.7.30 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during operation


7.7.87 Effect of permanent structures on rivernavigation and commercial river users.

8450 1 Our permanent structures would be designed to minimisethe effect on river navigation and other river users.Preliminary discussions with the PLA have also informed thedesign of the site. We are preparing a Navigational risk assessment as part of our DCO application, the approach towhich is being discussed with the PLA which is the bodyresponsible for the river and its users in London.

N

7.7.88 Loss of car parking will affect accessibility tolocal area and increase parking pressure.

8774 1 As set out in our site information paper, vehicles required forsite maintenance would normally comprise a small vanevery three to six months. Periodically (approximately everyten years) there would be a more detailed site inspection,which would require more vehicles, including two cranes.Temporary and limited parking bay suspension may berequired for a short period to allow inspection andmaintenance works. We would discuss the timing of theinspection/maintenance and any suspensions with the LBWprior to undertaking the works to limit the impact oftemporary loss of parking in the locality and maintainaccessibility in the local area.

Given the infrequency of these inspections and the lownumber of vehicles involved we do not considered that therewould be a traffic effect.

N

7.7.89 Effect of traffic and vehicles required for sitemaintenance.

7255 1 N

7.7.90 Effect of disruption, diversion or closure ofroads on access to local amenities.

7993 1 N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access

7.7.91 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during operation.


Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access




Table 7.7.31 Objections, issues and concerns to address the effects of transport and access during operation


7.7.92 More information is needed on transportmitigation, for example an explanation forthe need and use of the slipway and if it is tobe more than temporary.

8934, 8986 2 The likely significant operational effects of the site in termsof transport are very limited, if any. Therefore we do notbelieve that it is necessary to provide any mitigationmeasures. This position will be reviewed as part of theprocess of preparing a Transport assessment for the site. Ifthis identifies significant operational transport effects thenappropriate mitigation would be proposed.

Our proposals will retain the historic slipway as well ascreating a new area of public realm in the form of the newstructure in the foreshore. It is not currently part of ourproposals to provide a permanent pier or a new slipway oncompletion of our works given the proximity of Putney Pierand the historic slipway.

N

7.7.93 Take the opportunity to create newpermanent footpath for example creating asafe passage connecting the riverside pathat both sides of the Bridge.

8671, 8777 2 As set out in our site information paper our permanent workswould reinstate the existing Thames Path.

N

7.7.94 Provide a new modern pier/slipway as alegacy of the works.

8934 1 Our proposals will retain the historic slipway as well ascreating a new area of public realm in the foreshore. It is notcurrently part of our proposals to provide a permanent pieror a new slipway on completion of our works given theproximity of Putney Pier and the historic slipway.

N

7.7.95 Other permanent transport and accessmitigation:

- consideration of a permanent slip way- ensure good access between different

levels in the finished design.

8671, 8934 2 The existing public drawdock would be retained in its currentlocation, and in its current form and width.

Your comments are noted in respect of the different levelsand we can confirm that this is a matter that has informedour current design and operational layout, in line with therequirements of the Disability Discrimination Act and theneed to ensure accessibility.

N

Water and flood risk

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to and flood risk

7.7.96 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to water and flood risk during operation

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to and flood risk

Table 7.7.32 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during operation


7.7.97 Concerns that the straight edge, which isperpendicular to the slipway, would causehigh levels of wave rebound and mayhamper the slipway use after construction.

8729, 9253 2 Your comments are noted and will be taken intoconsideration in developing our proposals for this site. Weare carrying out fluvial modelling of the permanent foreshoreworks to establish the likely significant effects of thedevelopment on the river, and will discuss the findings with

C






the PLA and the Environment Agency to ensure that ourpermanent works do not detrimentally affect the use of theslipway. The design of our operational layout is a matterthat will be considered as a part of our targeted consultationfor this site.

7.7.98 Effect of permanent structures andoperational activities on tidal flow.

8662 1 Tidal patterns have been taken into account in developingour proposals for this site. Based on the studies that havebeen completed to date, this matter is not considered to be aconstraint. We will continue to discuss our proposals with

the PLA and the Environment Agency.

N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk

7.7.99 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during operation.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk

Table 7.7.33 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during operation


7.7.100 What happens if the river bed changesfollowing completion and how/who will put itright?

9253 1 Your comments are noted. We are undertaking scourmodelling. The permanent works have been designed insuch a way as to minimise scour. Where significant scour ispredicted we will carry out preventative measures (such asplacing riprap on the river bed), and in all locations theriverbed will be monitored and remedial works carried out

if/as required. Riprap presents a change in habitat ratherthan a loss of habitat. Recommended water mitigationmeasures will be provided as part of our Environmental statement which will be submitted with the application.

N

7.7.101 Other water mitigation:

- anything located on Waterman's Greenmay be subject to spring and surge tideflooding. Enclosure within vaults wouldhelp protect against this

- dredge the foreshore in front of ourpermanent platform to assist with boatmooring.

8669, 9253 2 Your comments are noted. Our design addresses theissues associated with the level of the spring tide. However,we are unable to use the vaults as these are owned by athird party who has developed alternative proposals for theiruse.

River dredging once our works are complete would be amatter for the Environment Agency and the PLA.

N


7.8 Our view of the way forward



7.8.1 We received a range of feedback on our proposals for this site, including supportive and neutral comments and objections, issues and concerns. We took all comments received intoaccount in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008.

7.8.2 In light of the feedback that we received, we believe that no new information has been highlighted that would change the conclusions of our site selection process to date. Putney BridgeForeshore therefore remains our preferred site to intercept the Putney Bridge CSO.

7.8.3 The feedback we received included detailed comments on the construction and operational effects of the proposed development and the measures we propose to reduce and managethose effects. Detailed comments were also made on our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site. Having regard to the feedback received, we will continue torefine our detailed proposals for this site to improve the design and reduce the impacts on the local community and environment. We are currently considering the following changes to thelayout and/or appearance of our proposals:.

improvements to the permanent design and layout of our proposals, specifically the location of the permanent works and the shape of the foreshore structure

the nature and location of the temporary replacement slipway

whether it would be possible to make further use of the river for the transport of shaft and short tunnel excavated materials in order to reduce the number of lorries on local roads.

7.8.4 In our SOCC we recognised that we may need to amend our scheme following phase two consultation and that if changes came forward we would consider whether targeted consultationis appropriate. We consider that the degree of change and the effect on the local community may affect the nature of the comments made during phase two consultation as the changeswe are considering may affect a different section of the community. On that basis, a round of targeted consultation on our revised proposals for this site will begin on 6 June 2012 andclose on 4 July 2012. Any comments received in response to our targeted consultation will be taken into account in preparing our application for a development consent order. We intendto publicise our proposed application in accordance with Section 48 of the Planning Act 2008 later in 2012. Full details of our proposed scheme will be set out in our DCO application andthe accompanying documents.

Supp Report on P2 Consultation - Chapter 7 Putney Bridge Foreshore

Documents