Supp Report On P2 Consultation - Chapter 10 Carnwath Road Riverside

110-RG-PNC-00000-000784 | May 2012
Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Chapter 10 Carnwath Road Riverside
10 Carnwath Road Riverside
Thames Tunnel Supplementary report on phase two consultation

List of contents
Page number
10
Carnwath Road Riverside ........................................................................... 10-1 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 Introduction ......................................................................................... 10-1 Number of respondents ...................................................................... 10-2 Site selection ...................................................................................... 10-2 Alternative sites ................................................................................ 10-22 Management of construction works .................................................. 10-29 Permanent design and appearance .................................................. 10-97 Management of operational effects ................................................ 10-110 Our view of the way forward ........................................................... 10-140
Supplementary report on phase two consultationReport Template
List of tables Page number Table 10.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on Carnwath Road Riverside ........................................................................................ 10-2 Table 10.3.1 Views on whether Carnwath Road Riverside should be our preferred site (Q2).......................................................................................... 10-3 Table 10.3.2 Supportive and neutral comments feedback comments in relation to selection of our preferred site ......................................................... 10-3 Table 10.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection of our preferred site .................................................................................. 10-8 Table 10.3.4 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to shortlisted sites .............................................................................................. 10-20 Table 10.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to Carnwath Road Riverside ............. 10-22 Table 10.4.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites.................................................... 10-28 Table 10.4.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites.................................................... 10-29 Table 10.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q4a) ............................................................. 10-30 Table 10.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q4b) ............................................................................... 10-30 Table 10.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to key issues during construction .................................................................................. 10-31 Table 10.5.4 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to measures to address the key issues during construction ............................................... 10-34 Table 10.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures to address the key issues during construction ............................................... 10-35 Table 10.5.6 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to air quality and odour during construction ....................................................................... 10-38 Table 10.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during construction ....................................................................... 10-39 Table 10.5.8 Supportive and neutral comments relating to measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour issues during construction ..................................................................................................... 10-42 Table 10.5.9 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address the effects of air quality and odour issues during construction ........................... 10-42 Table 10.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the construction working hours and programme .................................................................. 10-43 Table 10.5.11 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of the construction working hours and programme .................................................................. 10-45
Table 10.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout ..................................................................................... 10-45 Table 10.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during construction ....................................................................... 10-46 Table 10.5.14 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address the effects on the historic environment issues during construction ................ 10-47 Table 10.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination during construction ................................................ 10-47 Table 10.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to lighting during construction .................................................................................. 10-49 Table 10.5.17 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions for addressing the effects of lighting during construction ........................................... 10-50 Table 10.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns relating to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction ........................................................ 10-51 Table 10.5.19 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions for addressing natural environment (aquatic) issues during construction ........................ 10-51 Table 10.5.20 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) ............................................................... 10-51 Table 10.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) .................................................................................... 10-52 Table 10.5.22 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction .............. 10-53 Table 10.5.23 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to noise and vibration during construction ....................................................................... 10-54 Table 10.5.24 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during construction ....................................................................... 10-54 Table 10.5.25 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the measures proposed the effects of noise and vibration during construction ... 10-59 Table 10.5.26 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction .................................... 10-59 Table 10.5.27 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to open space and recreation during construction ...................................................... 10-62 Table 10.5.28 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during construction ...................................................... 10-63 Table 10.5.29 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to planning and development issues during construction....................................... 10-64 Table 10.5.30 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development issues during construction....................................... 10-65 Table 10.5.31 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions for addressing planning and development issues during construction ................................ 10-68 Table 10.5.32 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to socio-economic issues during construction ....................................................................... 10-69
Table 10.5.33 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic issues during construction ....................................................................... 10-71 Table 10.5.34 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions for addressing socioeconomic effects during construction ........................................... 10-78 Table 10.5.35 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to structures and utilities during construction ....................................................................... 10-79 Table 10.5.36 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during construction ....................................................................... 10-79 Table 10.5.37 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address the measures proposed in relation to the effects on structures and utilities during construction ....................................................................... 10-80 Table 10.5.38 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to townscape and visual issues during construction ............................................................ 10-82 Table 10.5.39 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual issues during construction ............................................................ 10-82 Table 10.5.40 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address townscape and visual effects during construction .......................................... 10-83 Table 10.5.41 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to transport and access during construction ....................................................................... 10-83 Table 10.5.42 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction ....................................................................... 10-85 Table 10.5.43 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction .. 10-91 Table 10.5.44 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address the effects of transport and access during construction ..................................... 10-91 Table 10.5.45 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk issues during construction ............................................................ 10-95 Table 10.5.46 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction .................................. 10-96 Table 10.6.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right issues that have influenced our permanent design for this site? (Q5) ..................... 10-97 Table 10.6.2 Please give us your views about our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site (Q6) ....................................... 10-97 Table 10.6.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site ............................. 10-98 Table 10.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site ......................................................... 10-100 Table 10.6.5 Design suggestions and improvements ...................................... 10-106 Table 10.7.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q7a) ........................................................... 10-110 Table 10.7.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q7b) ............................................................................. 10-111
Table 10.7.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments relating to general key issues during operation .............................................................. 10-111 Table 10.7.4 Objections, issues and concerns relating to general key issues during operation .................................................................................... 10-112 Table 10.7.5 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures to address the key issues during operation .................................... 10-116 Table 10.7.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures to address the key issues during operation .................................................. 10-116 Table 10.7.7 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour issues during operation ............................................. 10-120 Table 10.7.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour issues during operation .............................................................. 10-120 Table 10.7.9 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures proposed to address air quality and odour issues during operation . 10122 Table 10.7.10 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address air quality and odour issues during operation ............................................. 10-123 Table 10.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination issues during operation ....................................... 10-124 Table 10.7.12 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to natural environment (terrestrial) issues during operation ....................... 10-125 Table 10.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to natural environment (terrestrial) issues during operation ............................................ 10-125 Table 10.7.14 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address natural environment (terrestrial) issues during operation ....................... 10-126 Table 10.7.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration issues during operation .............................................................. 10-126 Table 10.7.16 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address noise and vibration issues during operation ................................................ 10-127 Table 10.7.17 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to open space and recreation issues during operation....................................... 10-127 Table 10.7.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation issues during operation ............................................. 10-127 Table 10.7.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development issues during operation ......................................... 10-128 Table 10.7.20 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address planning and development issues during operation .................................. 10-129 Table 10.7.21 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socioeconomic issues during operation .............................................. 10-130 Table 10.7.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic issues during operation ......................................................................... 10-130
Table 10.7.23 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address socioeconomic issues during operation .............................................. 10-132 Table 10.7.24 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities issues during operation .............................................................. 10-133 Table 10.7.25 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address structures and utilities issues during operation ........................................... 10-133 Table 10.7.26 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to townscape and visual issues during operation ............................................. 10-134 Table 10.7.27 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual issues during operation .............................................................. 10-134 Table 10.7.28 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address townscape and visual issues during operation ............................................. 10-134 Table 10.7.29 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access issues during operation .................................................. 10-135 Table 10.7.30 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access issues during operation .............................................................. 10-135 Table10.7.31 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures proposed to address transport and access issues during operation . 10136 Table 10.7.32 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address transport and access issues during operation ........................................... 10-137 Table 10.7.33 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk issues during operation .............................................................. 10-139 Table 10.7.34 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address water and flood risk issues during operation ............................................... 10-139
10
10.1
10.1.1
Carnwath Road Riverside

Introduction
This chapter covers the feedback comments received during phase two consultation regarding the our preferred site Carnwath Road Riverside. This site would be used to drive the main tunnel to Acton Storm Tanks and receive the main tunnel from Kirtling Street. Carnwath Road Riverside would also receive a long connection tunnel (the Frogmore connection tunnel), which would be driven from Dormay Street. At phase one consultation, our preferred main drive site was Barn Elms. However, following reassessment of potential sites and the tunnelling strategy, Carnwath Road Riverside was identified as our preferred main tunnel drive site and presented at phase two consultation. Barn Elms is still our preferred site to intercept the West Putney Storm Relief CSO (see chapter 6). For further information regarding the proposals at Carnwath Road Riverside at phase two consultation, refer to the Carnwath Road Riverside site information paper. Sections 10.3 (site selection) and 10.4 (alternative sites) of this chapter present feedback on alternative shortlisted sites to Carnwath Road Riverside, which were identified at phase two consultation. These are: Barn Elms (site 1) Feathers Wharf (site 2) Fulham Depot (site 3).
10.1.2
10.1.3
Structure of this chapter

10.1.4 This chapter is organised as listed below, which reflects the structure of the phase two consultation feedback form. 1.1.1 section 10.2 number of respondents section 10.3 site selection section 10.4 alternative sites section 10.5 management of construction works section 10.6 permanent design and appearance section 10.7 management of operational effects section 10.8 our view of the way forward.
In sections 10.3 to 10.7we present details of the feedback comments raised, the types and total number of respondents, and our response to feedback comments. Where specific objections, 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.
10.1.5 10.1.6
A full list of the phase two consultation material is set out in annex A to this report. Where a response contains reference to our website, go to www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk for further information, or to access the documents referred to. Where more than 250 respondents have made a feedback comment the details of the respondent IDs are set out in annex C to this report.
Mitigation 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.
10-1
10.2
10.2.1
Number of respondents
A total of 3,136 respondents and two petitions provided comments on Carnwath Road Riverside, of which 41 were received after the close of our phase two consultation. Table 10.2.1 sets out the different groups who provided feedback for this site. Table 10.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on Carnwath Road Riverside Statutory consultees 7 respondents - Design Council CABE (CABE) - Consumer Council for Water (CCW) - English Heritage (EH) - Environment Agency (EA) - Greater London Authority (GLA) - London Councils (LC) - Port of London Authority (PLA) Local authorities 3 respondents - London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF) - London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames (LBR) - London Borough of Wandsworth (LBW) Landowners 21 respondents Community consultees 3,105 respondents Petitions 2 petitions - 291 signatories - 4,766 signatories
10.2.2
Feedback was received in a number of forms, including: feedback forms, an alternative Carnwath Road Riverside feedback form, correspondence (emails and letters) and two petitions.
10.3
10.3.1
Site selection
A series of sites is required in order to build and operate the Thames Tunnel project. To determine our preferred scheme, a site selection process is being undertaken, using a methodology which was adopted after consultation with the relevant local authorities and statutory consultees. For further information on our methodology and the process we are following, 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 size of construction sites. 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 process for each of the preferred sites.
10.3.2
The results of the site selection process up to phase two consultation are set in:
10.3.3
In this section, we set out the feedback comments received in relation to the selection of Carnwath Road Riverside as our preferred site, together with our responses. Our responses provide 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 in relation 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 assess how the effects arising from the proposed development can be addressed. The output of our assessment up to phase two consultation is contained in appendix G of the Design development report and our PEIR (volume 13). Where respondents commented on matters in relation to management of construction works, permanent design and appearance or the management of operational effects at Carnwath Road Riverside, these comments are reported in sections 10.5 to 10.7.
10.3.4
Number of respondents
10.3.5 During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked to comment on the decision to select Carnwath Road Riverside as our preferred site to drive the main tunnel to Acton Storm Tanks (see question 2 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in Appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). Table 10.3.1 sets out details of the different groups who responded and were asked to select supportive, opposed/concerned or dont know/unsure. Tables 10.3.2 and 10.3.3 then detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments selected supportive, opposed/concerned or dont know/unsure.
10-2
Table 10.3.1 Views on whether Carnwath Road Riverside should be our preferred site (Q2) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 2 18 2,891 1 2,912 205 1 - LBR 1 203 1 - LBHF 16 2,622 1 - 291 signatories 2,640 67 1 66 Supportive Opposed/ concerned Dont know/ unsure
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to our preferred site Table 10.3.2 Supportive and neutral comments feedback comments in relation to selection of our preferred site Ref 10.3.6 Supportive and neutral comments Support the use of the preferred site. Respondent ID 7729LO, 11014, 11026, 11112, 11308, 11450, 11539, 11565, 11675, 11757, 11823, 11888, 12114, 12189, 12210, 12282, 12435, 12565, 12588, 12590, 12609, 12720, 12742, 12777, 12951, 12995, 13012, 13015, 13217, 7124, 7323, 7418, 7784, 7871, 7901, 7905, 7997, 8118, 8736, 9382, 9486, LR9236, LR9447 GLA, PLA, LBR, LBW, 13471, 13479, 13483, 7009, 7128, 7160, 7175, 7288, 7359, 7383, 7604, 7641, 7744, 7814, 7860, 7873, 7878, 7887, 7891, 7901, 7915, 7930, 7953, 7955, 7963, 7970, 7980, 7995, 8029, 8034, 8147, 8148, 8149, 8150, 8151, 8152, 8153, 8162, 8163, 8164, 8165, 8166, 8167, 8168, 8169, 8171, 8172, 8173, 8174, 8175, 8176, 8179, 8185, 8190, 8195, 8202, 8216, 8219, 8224, 8276, 8281, 8292, 8322, 8408, 8502, 8516, 8517, 8518, 8520, 8522, 8523, 8524, 8526, 8535, 8576, 8578, 8580, 8582, 8583, 8584, 8587, 8592, 8593, 8594, 8596, 8597, 8599, 8601, 8603, 8605, 8607, 8616, 8618, 8619, 8620, 8623, 8637, 8638, 8671, 8695, 8696, 8699, 8700, 8701, 8709, 8710, 8728, 8729, 8730, 8757, 8774, 8777, 8800, 8804, 8810, 8816, 8822, 8825, 8860, 8871, 8880, 8905, No. 43 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
10.3.7
Support the identification of a new preferred site since phase one consultation/ the preferred site is more suitable than the site put forward at phase one consultation. Reasons included: - the site has better access and local road infrastructure - it would reduce the number of barges travelling under Putney Bridge, which will reduce the risk for recreational river users - the site is a disused brownfield site adjacent to an industrial park - use of a greenfield site over a brownfield site would be hard to justify - use of this site would not result in the loss of green space; Barn Elms is very valuable recreational resource which is used by a lot of people - there would be less conflict with
188
10-3
Ref
Supportive and neutral comments recreational river users - there would be less impact on the Thames Path - the site has better and more reliable river access - The environmental and recreational impact would be lower - Barn Elms has a higher density of residences - fewer residents would be directly affected downstream sites should be favoured over equivalent upstream sites as the spoil has to be taken east - it relocates major tunnelling activities from a greenfield to a partially derelict brownfield site and increases the viability of barge transport by using a currently vacant safeguarded wharf. The preferred site is more suitable than any alternative site. The preferred site is more suitable than any of the shortlisted site(s) - specifically Barn Elms (site 1). Thames Water has taken objections raised at phase one consultation into account in site selection.
Respondent ID 8925, 8945, 8955, 8961, 8966, 8974, 8977, 8986, 9001, 9002, 9005, 9006, 9009, 9010, 9020, 9033, 9042, 9055, 9056, 9057, 9058, 9059, 9060, 9063, 9067, 9068, 9069, 9073, 9102, 9151, 9155, 9159, 9166, 9191, 9205, 9209, 9239, 9240, 9245, 9248, 9262, 9281, 9296, 9300, 9351, 9354, 9362, 9364, 9367, 9372, 9408, 9423, 9429, 9431, 9442, LR13383, LR13385, LR13478, LR9164, LR9236, LR9276, LR9447
No.
Our response
10.3.8 10.3.9
7758, 7781, 8280, 8742 7839, 8289
4 2
10.3.10
8034, 8514, 8580, 8977, 9001, 9002, 9042, 9262, 9429, LR9236
10
Noted. We have considered the comments received at phase one consultation and where possible these have been incorporated into the revised proposals we presented at phase two consultation. Feedback received at phase one consultation is one the factors that has contributed to us changing our preferred main tunnel drive site from Barn Elms to Carnwath Road Riverside. Noted. .
10.3.11
Characteristics which make the site suitable, included: - existing wharves and river access - better quayside mooring facilities for barges - good road access - proximity to strategic road network - being on the inside of a river bend, tidal scouring has created a wider tidal range and deeper channel with capacity for larger barges (850 tonnes rather than 350 tonnes) - the width and height of the navigational span of Wandsworth Bridge, is better than Putney Bridge.
13479, 7160, 7223, 7744, 7750, 7754, 7839, 7855, 7887, 7889, 7938, 8147, 8151, 8202, 8281, 8289, 8502, 8535, 8592, 8619, 8637, 8638, 8671, 8708, 8728, 8777, 8825, 8871, 8955, 8966, 9020, 9144, 9151, 9354, 9382, 9408, 9442, LR13385, LR13478, LR9447
40
10-4
Ref 10.3.12
Supportive and neutral comments The site is a cost-effective option, specifically relating to the opportunity to use the river to transport materials and the size of barge that can be accommodated. The site is currently vacant/derelict/available for redevelopment.
Respondent ID 8289
No. 1
Our response
10.3.13
11014, 13479, 7744, 7825, 7855, 8098, 8118, 8148, 8149, 8150, 8152, 8153, 8162, 8163, 8164, 8165, 8166, 8167, 8168, 8169, 8173, 8174, 8175, 8179, 8202, 8518, 8584, 8592, 8593, 8594, 8596, 8597, 8599, 8603, 8605, 8607, 8620, 8681, 8695, 8699, 8700, 8709, 8710, 8800, 8804, 8955, 9033, 9056, 9057, 9058, 9059, 9060, 9144, 9245, 9354, 9364, 9382, 9423, LR13478 8847
59
10.3.14
The site will be a catalyst for regeneration/redevelopment/improvements to the local area. The site is currently underutilised. Site is of limited value to the local community. Agree with the reasons for selecting the preferred site, as set out in the site information paper. Support the site selection because the project needs to be undertaken. The site is a suitable size and/or has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposals. It is a brownfield site.
10.3.15 10.3.16 10.3.17
7124, 7754 7762 7251, 7275
2 1 2
10.3.18 10.3.19
13015, 7997, 8118 13483
3 1 Agreed.
10.3.20
LBR, 13471, 13479, 13483, 7009, 7128, 7160, 7175, 7223, 7251, 7288, 7418, 7478, 7507, 7744, 7750, 7754, 7771, 7814, 7825, 7839, 7873, 7878, 7889, 7891, 7903, 7904, 7905, 7930, 7938, 7953, 7955, 7970, 7980, 7985, 8015, 8029, 8034, 8098, 8148, 8149, 8150, 8151, 8152, 8153, 8162, 8163, 8164, 8165, 8166, 8167, 8168, 8169, 8173, 8174, 8175, 8176, 8185, 8190, 8202, 8216, 8276, 8289, 8322, 8332, 8502, 8518, 8522, 8523, 8524, 8535, 8578, 8580, 8582, 8583, 8584, 8587, 8592, 8593, 8594, 8596, 8597, 8599, 8601, 8603, 8605, 8607, 8616, 8619, 8620, 8623, 8637, 8638, 8671, 8695, 8699, 8700, 8701, 8708, 8709, 8710, 8728,
140
Noted. The preferred site is brownfield land and was one of the considerations taken into account as part of our site selection process.
10-5
Ref
Supportive and neutral comments
Respondent ID 8730, 8766, 8777, 8800, 8804, 8825, 8871, 8880, 8955, 8961, 8966, 8974, 9009, 9020, 9033, 9056, 9057, 9058, 9059, 9060, 9067, 9072, 9144, 9151, 9167, 9245, 9247, 9262, 9281, 9351, 9354, 9364, 9367, 9408, 9429, 9442, LR13478, LR9447 13471, 7016, 7801, 7891, 7905, 7953, 8028, 8179, 8578, 9245 13479, 7855, 8118, 8148, 8149, 8150, 8152, 8153, 8162, 8163, 8164, 8165, 8166, 8167, 8168, 8169, 8173, 8174, 8175, 8518, 8592, 8593, 8594, 8596, 8597, 8599, 8601, 8603, 8605, 8607, 8620, 8637, 8638, 8695, 8699, 8700, 8701, 8708, 8709, 8710, 8800, 8804, 8955, 9033, 9056, 9057, 9059, 9060, 9144, 9354, 9364, 9408, 9429, LR13478 7801 11607, 12087, 7124, 7801, 7903, 7904, 7985, 8028, 8280 7839, 7873, 8190, 8578, 8587, 8730, 8825, 9072, 9281 7220
No.
Our response
10.3.21 10.3.22
The site is an industrial site. Proposals are compatible with existing uses in the vicinity of the site, which includes industrial uses.
10 54
Noted. Using industrial land was one of the considerations taken into account as part of our site selection process. Noted. Compatibility between our proposals and existing uses at a site is one of the considerations taken into account as part of our site selection process.
10.3.23 10.3.24 10.3.25 10.3.26
The site is sufficiently far away from residential areas/is not a residential area Use of the site would have limited effects on the local area and community. Use of the site would not result in the loss of open space/use of greenfield sites. Not qualified to comment on this technical matter.
1 9 9 1
Noted. Effect on residents was one of the considerations taken into account as part of our site selection process as well as the ability to mitigate likely significant effects. Noted. Open space is one of the considerations taken into account as part of our site selection process. The purpose of consultation is to explore as fully as possible what those with an interest in the project think about our proposals. We will have regard to comments received from both technical and non-technical consultees. Your comments are noted.
10.3.27
Other supportive comments included: 7744, 7777, 7855, 7891, 7904, 7997, 8118, 8401, 8541 - all sites will be disruptive during construction and should be accepted given the long-term benefit of the project - use of this site will minimise material risk to wildlife and the environment - the site has already been subject to largescale development, and will continue to be so in the years ahead - it is an essential project which has to be realised without delay; any delay will result in further speculative developments close to the available sites - appreciate that there are good engineering reasons to create a shorter tunnel from a main drive site at Carnwath
10-6
Ref
Supportive and neutral comments Road. Other comments included: - shocked and concerned about the cynical stirring up of concerns amongst local residents and the knee jerk reaction from the council - should not hold the project back as a consequence of 'NIMBY' protestors - it is selfish to only consider personal interests by opposing a project that will benefit the whole of London.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response
10.3.28
Qualified support for the preferred site included: - any site is acceptable subject to appropriate mitigation
EH, 9434LO, 7777, 7975, 8098, 9253
Since selecting Carnwath Road Riverside as our preferred site, we have begun assessing the likely significant effects that may arise as a result of the works as part of an environmental impact assessment. This will set out measures necessary to mitigate any likely significant effects that are identified. An Environmental statement, which records the findings of the environmental impact assessment, will accompany our DCO application. The initial environmental assessment work that has been carried out on the project is contained within the PEIR (volume 13), which is available on our website. As part of the phase two consultation, we have also sought feedback on the potential likely significant effects arising from our proposals and how the effects will be mitigated. Where possible, we will take feedback comments into account as we develop our proposals. . Refer to paragraphs 10.5.56 and 10.7.47 for our response to this feedback comment. We are currently considering our design proposals for the site and will consider how we can take your comments into consideration. Refer to paragraph 10.5.353 for our response to this feedback comment. Refer to paragraph 10.5.341 in relation to highway improvement works. With regard to provision of environmental information, we consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. As part of this, we carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. Information of key likely significant environmental effects was contained in the Carnwath Road Riverside site information paper with further details contained within the PEIR (volume 13) and the draft CoCP. We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient. Refer to paragraphs 10.5.141 and table 10.5.213 for our response to this feedback comment.
- odour must be controlled - ventilation shafts must be incorporated into future development - the river must be used to transport excavated material and bulky goods - subject to confirmation that Thames Water will not require any highway improvements and/or sufficient environmental information to enable others to make this assessment
- require additional information from Thames Water to demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable noise, vibration and socio-economic impacts.
10-7
Objections, issues and concerns Table 10.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection of our preferred site Ref 10.3.29 Objections, issues and concerns Object to the use of this preferred site. Respondent ID 13397LO, 7285LO, 9169LO, 9400LO, 9417LO, 9481LO, 11018, 11040, 11041, 11104, 11133, 11156, 11232, 11261, 11316, 11330, 11341, 11410, 11411, 11414, 11438, 11452, 11453, 11457, 11496, 11564, 11623, 11687, 11754, 11759, 11834, 11865, 12015, 12539, 12598, 12616, 12635, 12756, 12793, 13061, 13099, 7007, 7015, 7035, 7120, 7121, 7125, 7142, 7143, 7186, 7254, 7276, 7345, 7353, 7362, 7363, 7382, 7388, 7409, 7411, 7417, 7430, 7433, 7435, 7440, 7461, 7470, 7482, 7495, 7512, 7513, 7516, 7519, 7522, 7523, 7527, 7532, 7544, 7545, 7564, 7673, 7693, 7702, 7731, 7751, 7780, 7786, 7856, 7892, 7931, 8020, 8096, 8103, 8288, 8472, 8542, 8749, 8839, 8855, 8870, 8878, 8906, 8913, 8923, 8926, 9008, 9024, 9034, 9037, 9201, 9377, 9421PET 9417LO, 9481LO, 7341, 7424, 7434, 7439, 7466, 7544, 7657, 7794, 8030, 8037, 9303 LBHF, 8082LO, 11018, 11065, 11100, 11135, 11260, 11274, 11280, 11373, 11435, 11464, 11469, 11470, 11497, 11500, 11608, 11625, 11660, 11706, 11707, 11716, 11755, 11799, 11802, 11807, 11862, 11874, 11902, 11952, 11958, 11967, 11983, 12173, 12343, 12446, 12449, 12451, 12452, 12456, 12529, 12533, 12543, 12596, 12603, 12666, 12689, 12703, 12707, 12743, 12779, 12796, 12829, 12839, 12910, 12973, 12982, 12990, 12992, 13004, 13006, 13033, 13067, 13094, 13104, 13112, 13138, 13150, 13191, 13204, 13230, 13233, 7005, 7125, 7135, 7156, 7168, 7177, 7178, 7197, 7217, 7228, 7235, 7259, 7276, 7335, 7336, 7342, 7343, 7345, 7394, 7464, 7472, 7478, 7480, 7486, 7499, 7504, 7507, 7523, 7526, 7527, 7532, 7544, 7553, 7565, 7633, 7671, 7675, 7691, 7702, 7751, 7794, 7836, 7894, 7922, 7932, 7934, No. 112 Our response The sites that we consulted on at phase two consultation have been identified through an extensive site selection process (see our Site selection methodology paper on our website). We consulted and agreed the methodology prior to its use with key stakeholders including potentially directly affected local authorities and utilised a multidisciplinary approach to assess potential main tunnel sites and drive options against engineering, planning, environmental, property and community considerations. We recognise that, given the locations where we are seeking to construct and operate the tunnel, many of the shortlisted sites are constrained. However, based on our assessment we consider that, on balance, Carnwath Road Riverside is the most suitable site. Generally, this is because it is a brownfield site and the presence of wharves at this site, combined with the width of the River Thames at this point, would allow the use of larger barges to remove material excavated during construction of the main tunnel. There would be much less conflict with recreational users of the River Thames than at Barn Elms. For more detailed response to the specific alternative site suggestions received, refer to: - specifically one in a less densely populated or residential area paragraph 10.3.47 - several south of the River Thames paragraph 10.4.27 - Wandsworth Park paragraph 10.4.16 - between Putney and Hammersmith Bridge paragraphs 10.4.25 and 10.4.28. - Battersea Power Station paragraph 10.4.8 - industrial sites paragraph 10.3.45 - less costly options paragraph 10.3.57 - other unpopulated sites paragraph 10.4.33. For further details on the results of the site selection process including our assessment of shortlisted sites, refer to appendix G of the Phase two scheme development report.
10.3.30 10.3.31
Disagree with the selection of this preferred site. This preferred site is generally unsuitable.
13 136
10-8
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns
Respondent ID 7949, 8011, 8112, 8124, 8313, 8550, 8636, 8678, 8727, 8736, 8820, 8839, 8888, 8891, 9441, 9460, LR13422, LR9418 7359 See annex C of this report
No.
Our response
10.3.32 10.3.33
Do not support the specific location of the site. Should use/consider an alternative site specifically one in a less densely populated or residential area. There are other more suitable alternative sites available in the local area, including several south of the River Thames, Wandsworth Park, between Putney and Hammersmith Bridge, Battersea Power Station, industrial sites, less costly options, and other unpopulated sites. Alternative sites have not been properly considered.
1 395
10.3.34
9131LO, 11015, 11099, 11368, 11467, 11669, 11878, 12234, 12417, 13014, 13091, 13099, 7104, 7135, 7177, 7180, 7197, 7201, 7220, 7221, 7241, 7269, 7341, 7396, 7408, 7532, 7538, 7544, 7575, 7663, 7671, 7673, 7728, 7824, 8100, 8313, 8683, 8838, 8878, 9461, 9421PET 11058, 11504, 11702, 12097, 12107, 12111, 12117, 12306, 12326, 12367, 12405, 12407, 12480, 12768, 12769, 12789, 12885, 12927, 12945, 12980, 12991, 13003, 13040, 13152, 7201, 7847, 8581, 8693 7127, 7378, 9377
41
10.3.35
28
10.3.36
Site selection has not incorporated comments and objections from phase one consultation or interim engagement.
Following phase one consultation, we considered the comments from phase one consultation, along with feedback from on-going engagement, new information and undertook further technical work. This triggered a review of all potential main tunnel sites between Hammersmith Bridge and Albert Bridge. The result of this review and assessment (which was based on our agreed site selection methodology) was that we changed our preferred main tunnel drive site from Barn Elms to Carnwath Road Riverside. Therefore, it is difficult to maintain that we did not consider feedback to phase one consultation because this resulted in a number of changes to sites, use of sites and our drive strategy in the western end of the main tunnel. For further details of how we have taken account of the feedback received at phase one consultation and interim engagement refer to our Report on phase one consultation and Interim engagement report. We considered the comments from phase one consultation, along with feedback from on-going engagement, new information and undertook further technical work. As set out in appendix G of the Phase two scheme development report, the following reasons triggered our decision to review whether Barn Elms remained the most suitable main tunnel drive site. These were: - We were aware that LBHF had changed the planning policy designation at the Hammersmith Pumping Station site from mixed use
10.3.37
The preferred site put forward at phase one consultation, Barn Elms, is more suitable because: - the scale and type of impact is more acceptable - it would have less impact on residential amenity and the local community - less impact on business
See annex C of this report
1,319
10-9
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns - it will not hold back wider regeneration - the site is less physically constrained in terms of river access, contamination and size - it is a cheaper option - recreational impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated - the site can be easily restored following completion of construction - local road infrastructure is more suitable and traffic disruption would be minimised - combined sewer overflow (CSO) interception and main tunnel drive sites should be combined - there is no reasonable reason why this site cannot be used. Reasons for changing the preferred site since phase one consultation are unclear/unjustified/unsatisfactory. In particular: - too much weight has been given to the 'greenfield' and Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) status of the site - local planning policies have been misapplied - the temporary impact on a greenfield site/MOL is acceptable, as acknowledged by Thames Water - the scale of impact on the local community resulting from the use of Carnwath Road is unacceptable, vs environmental/recreational impacts at Barn Elms - the issues relating to site constraints such as foreshore depth apply to both sites - the scale of impact associated with using Carnwath Road and its feasibility as a main drive site has not been fully identified/ assessed
Respondent ID
No.
10.3.38
LBHF, 13397LO, 8843LO, 9131LO, 9261LO, 9392LO, 9481LO, 11011, 11022, 11038, 11042, 11043, 11044, 11045, 11046, 11058, 11182, 11191, 11192, 11193, 11194, 11233, 11243, 11307, 11361, 11448, 11456, 11502, 11509, 11577, 11607, 11772, 11781, 12042, 12085, 12087, 12112, 12301, 12477, 12544, 12678, 12685, 12788, 12797, 12821, 12837, 12968, 12979, 12986, 12987, 12988, 12989, 12990, 12994, 13000, 13002, 13004, 13005, 13006, 13007, 13020, 13021, 13025, 13028, 13032, 13033, 13034, 13035, 13036, 13037, 13042, 13053, 13056, 13063, 13064, 13066, 13068, 13079, 13082, 13083, 13084, 13085, 13093, 13111, 13114, 13123, 13136, 13139, 13141, 13146, 13160, 13171, 13174, 13175, 13179, 13180, 13184, 13192, 13195, 13198, 13200, 13201, 13206, 13208, 13228, 13229, 13238, 7015, 7127, 7173, 7177, 7192, 7193, 7196, 7250, 7371, 7377, 7427, 7428, 7434, 7483, 7485, 7507, 7514, 7561, 7601, 7610, 7628, 7633, 7675, 7692, 7694, 7741, 7794, 7824, 7833, 7848, 7873, 7877, 7922, 7958, 7971, 8007, 8022, 8027, 8108, 8196, 8199, 8209, 8211, 8241, 8413, 8505, 8537, 8586, 8629, 8743, 8749,
175
Our response to residential. As a result of this, at the time of our review a new planning application for a residential development on the part of the site which excluded Hammersmith Pumping Station had been submitted. This planning application has now been approved and construction works have commenced. - because of strategic design developments, the long connection tunnel between Hammersmith Pumping Station and Acton Storm Tanks, which needed to be the same width at the main tunnel, and therefore the main tunnel needed to be extended to Acton Storm Tanks. - review of tunnelling strategy for the western part of the main tunnel. - further technical work on barge movements at Barn Elms confirmed that only 350 tonne barges could be used to transport materials by river. Due to the short tidal window, this limited the amount of material which could be transported by river. The reduced width of the River Thames at this location also increases the potential for conflict between barge operators and recreational users of the River Thames. - comments from phase one consultation on the effects of using Barn Elms as a main tunnel drive site. - changes in the engineering site size assumptions which underpin the search for suitable sites. As a result of a review of possible sites, Barn Elms and Carnwath Road Riverside emerged as the two most suitable sites. We consider that Carnwath Road Riverside is more suitable than Barn Elms because: - Carnwath Road Riverside is a brownfield site while Barn Elms is a greenfield site. - Carnwath Road Riverside includes a safeguarded wharf and has much better river access for transportation of construction materials, using significantly larger barges (800 1000 tonne rather than 350 tonne) than can reach Barn Elms. - at Carnwath Road Riverside, there would be less conflict with recreational users of the River Thames than at Barn Elms. - Carnwath Road Riverside has better direct access to the public road network and links to the strategic road network. In contrast, at Barn Elms there would be a need to construct lengthy temporary access roads across the Barn Elms playing fields to local roads. - use of Carnwath Road Riverside is less disruption to the Thames Path than at Barn Elms. The Thames Path is already diverted around the site at Carnwath Road Riverside. - use of this site will have less impact on the natural and built environment in terms of planning policies and designations whereas using Barn Elms as a main tunnel drive site would affect MOL, the site is adjacent to a SSSI (Wetlands Centre), would affect Barn Elms Playing Fields and would necessitate need to demolish local community boating facility etc. Further information including responses to the detailed points raised is contained within appendix G of the Phase two scheme development
10-10
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns - the criteria and reasons for rejecting Barn Elms need to be made public - the reasons for changing the preferred site (brownfield site, opportunities for river transport and reduced impact on recreation) are not sufficient to justify the change of site - Thames Water has admitted that the use of Carnwath Road would be more costly and disruptive - the increased cost of using Carnwath Road cannot be justified - Thames Water has breached the principles of lawful consultation
Respondent ID 8865, 8867, 8891, 9061, 9124, 9303, 9384, 9441, 9443, 9460, 9461, 9474, LR13428, LR13429, LR13441, LR13444, LR9418
No.
Our response report. The criteria and reasons for rejecting Barn Elms have been made public. Refer to paragraphs 10.3.1 and 10.3.2 for further details. We disagree. These are important considerations and cannot be dismissed as being irrelevant.
See paragraph 103.3.57 for our response to these feedback comments.
- Carnwath Road Riverside was explicitly identified and rejected at phase one consultation.
10.3.39
One of the shortlisted sites is more suitable. Specifically, Feathers Wharf (site 2) is close to a rail line and next to waste transfer site with existing barge facilities. The ventilation column could be easily accommodated, and the River Wandle could accommodate a piled deck platform over the river as a temporary raised structure to provide additional space. The site already suffers from odour associated with the waste transfer station. The site selection methodology is
12539, 13395, 7673, 7968, 9461
This is not a matter for site selection. However, in devising and carrying out our consultation strategy, we met the requirements of the Planning Act 2008 and have had regard to the Department for Communities and Local Government guidance on pre-application consultation. We do not consider therefore that we have breached the principles of lawful consultation. At phase one consultation we identified two main tunnel intermediate sites that covered Carnwath Road Riverside. At this point, from a technical perspective we said that a main tunnel drive site needed to be at least 20,000m2. We listened to concerns raised at phase one consultation and re-checked our engineering assumptions. We found that where we were constructing in clay, we could use smaller sizes that previously identified. As a result, we reviewed and re-assessed all sites between Hammersmith Bridge and Albert Bridge; we found Carnwath Road Riverside to be suitable in this main tunnel zone. We then rechecked our drive options for the western section of the main tunnel. When we compared the different drive options using Barn Elms and Carnwath Road Riverside, we found Carnwath Road Riverside to be the most suitable site. For further details, refer to chapter 6 and appendix G of our Phase two scheme development report. Our re-assessment of sites prior to phase two consultation and our review of phase two consultation comments do not support the use of Feathers Wharf as our preferred site. Feathers Wharf is less suitable than our preferred site because it is too small to accommodate all the works and no viable partner site could be identified. Refer to appendix G of the Phase two scheme development for further details of our assessment.
10.3.40
9400LO, 11056, 12371, 13020, 13133,
18
The sites on which we have consulted were identified through an
10-11
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns incorrect/flawed/unjustified. In particular: - further in-depth impact analysis is required before Thames Water can make an informed decision - the relative merits of different sites need to be quantified - factors should not be equally weighted - site selection is a subjective Thames Water decision
Respondent ID 7364, 7377, 7427, 7428, 7483, 7485, 7618, 7977, 8288, 8318, 8413, 8505, 8891
No.
Our response extensive site selection process as set out in the Site selection methodology paper that is available on our website. This methodology was agreed with key stakeholders, including potentially directly affected local authorities, prior to its use. The paper explains how environmental, planning, engineering, property and community considerations were taken into account in the site selection process. The site selection methodology does not include a quantitative scoring or weighting element. Such an approach is not considered best practice, and this was agreed with stakeholders when consulting on the draft methodology. Instead the methodology relies on increasingly detailed study at each stage of the process, utilising professional judgement to reach balanced decisions about the suitability of sites. Refer to paragraph 103.3.52 for our response to this feedback comment. Refer to paragraph 10.3.57 for our response to this feedback comment.
- the overriding factor should be the impact on businesses and quality of life - profit and cost is the overriding factor. 10.3.41 10.3.42 10.3.43 Site selection should use / prioritise brownfield sites. Site selection should avoid greenfield sites and open space. Site selection should not use sites within the River Thames foreshore. 11189, 12579, 13094 11189, 9029 11629, 13118 3 2 3
Whether a site is brownfield or greenfield/open space was taken into account along with other considerations as set out in the Site selection methodology paper. In general, main tunnel sites will be located on land due to a range of engineering constraints and requirements. Only where it has proved difficult to identify suitable land-based sites, have we explored the potential for siting main tunnel sites wholly or partially within or on the foreshore of the River Thames. Further information can be found within the Site selection background technical paper, which is available on our website. We can confirm that apart from the construction of a campshed to facilitate use of barges at this site, we are not proposing to construct within the foreshore. The campshed design and construction will mitigate any likely significant environmental effects. The planning status of a site was taken into account along with other considerations as set out in the Site selection methodology paper. A professional judgement was then made in relation to the impact on the planning status of that site and this was balanced against other considerations identified in the Site selection methodology paper. It should be noted that even if sites have been allocated or have secured a planning permission, that does not preclude the use of the site. Other factors such as whether the planning permission will be implemented need to be considered Even then, it may be possible for construction work to be phased so that both the approved development and the Thames Tunnel project can be constructed. Sites located within designated regeneration areas do not necessary preclude the use of the site as our proposed use in many cases can be complementary or beneficial to some of the regeneration aims.
10.3.44
Site selection should avoid sites that have been allocated for, are known to be awaiting, or have planning permission for redevelopment. Specifically: - this site has been identified for mixed use development
LBHF, 13365LO, 9417LO, 9481LO, 11800, 12138, 7824, 8537, 8838, 8839, 8926, 9428, 9460, LR9418
14
10-12
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns - a large proportion of the plots identified as having potential for redevelopment within the next zero to ten years would essentially be sterilised by the works
Respondent ID
No.
Our response We are aware of the allocation within the adopted Core strategy for residential development on both Whiffin Wharf and the Carnwath Road Industrial Estate and of Hurlingham Wharfs safeguarded wharf status. Consequently, we have organised the layout of our proposed permanent works such that there will be no effect on the Carnwath Road Industrial Estate, however, some of Whiffin Wharf will be occupied by our main tunnel shaft and several above ground structures permanently, which may prevent the use of the entire site for future development. In addition, we are providing for a significant area of permanent public open space west of our permanent works and for an area for future development. We therefore believe that the area sterilised by our proposed works is minimised and following completion of our temporary works the development aspirations for this area can proceed. We are currently considering our design proposals for the site and will consider how we can take your comments into consideration. We have considered the effect on local area and businesses as part of the site selection process, the results of which concluded that Carnwath Road Riverside is the most suitable site.
- permanent structures will severely limit the sites development potential - potential impact Hurlingham Retail Park site redevelopment proposals. 10.3.45 Site selection should prioritise use of industrial sites; should use an industrial site that is not in a vibrant family neighbourhood. 7400 1
Carnwath Road Riverside is an industrial site. We recognise that our preferred site is within close proximity to residential housing. As part of the project design development process, we continue to assess how the likely significant effects arising from the proposed development can be addressed. The output of our assessment up to phase two consultation is contained within appendix G of the Design development report and our PEIR (volume 13). Carnwath Road Riverside is a partially vacant site. In identifying our preferred sites, we have followed the methodology set out in the Site selection methodology paper. Having considered the issue raised, we are confident that the basis on which we identified the site as a preferred site is consistent with our site selection methodology. The main tunnel search area and tunnel alignment generally follows the River Thames. This is an efficient route to connect CSOs on the north and south side of the river, minimises going under buildings and allows use of river transport during construction. In addition to the locational constraints for main tunnel sites, the sites need to fulfil other engineering requirements and planning, environment, planning and community considerations. Given that we are searching for sites within complex built up areas of central London and given the requirements that the sites need to fulfil, we did not consider it appropriate to exclude sites based on their use when compiling our longlist of sites. Proximity to residential areas and the likely significant effect of the proposals on residential amenity was taken into account along with other considerations as set out in the Site selection methodology paper.
10.3.46 10.3.47 10.3.48
Site selection should prioritise use of vacant sites. Site selection should avoid sites in residential and/or densely populated areas. Impact on residential amenity should be considered as part of the site selection process. Site selection needs to be reconsidered and should focus on less residential areas.
7225 See annex C of this report LBHF, 13397LO, 9392LO, 8318, 8923, 9461, LR9418, 9421PET 11566, 11732, 12373, 12539, 7050, 7388, 7513, 7534, 7663, 7958, 7968
1 557 8
10.3.49
11
10-13
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response We recognise that our preferred site is within close proximity to residential housing. As part of the project design development process, we continue to assess how the likely significant effects arising from the proposed development can be addressed. The output of our assessment up to phase two consultation is contained within appendix G of the Design development report and our PEIR (volume 13). Proximity to sensitive receptors including schools and nurseries was taken into account along with other considerations as set out in the Site selection methodology paper. We recognise that Thomass Fulham School in particular is within close proximity to our preferred site. However, as set out in appendix G of the Phase two scheme development report, we consider that Carnwath Road Riverside is the most suitable site and that likely significant effects on community facilities can be mitigated.
10.3.50
Site selection should avoid sites close to sensitive receptors, including: - schools and nurseries; there are 17 schools and four nurseries within 1,500 metres of the site - sheltered housing.
LBHF, 8082LO, 8843LO, 9495LO, 11008, 11055, 11058, 11068, 11069, 11102, 11104, 11149, 11185, 11228, 11243, 11277, 11301, 11303, 11326, 11361, 11362, 11400, 11402, 11409, 11411, 11414, 11500, 11588, 11612, 11664, 11699, 11741, 11746, 11748, 11768, 11802, 11806, 11816, 11979, 11992, 11993, 11994, 12006, 12018, 12026, 12037, 12236, 12241, 12242, 12279, 12281, 12352, 12360, 12376, 12379, 12383, 12408, 12496, 12539, 12579, 12586, 12611, 12635, 12662, 12677, 12689, 12693, 12707, 12728, 12734, 12737, 12785, 12860, 12900, 12904, 12942, 12969, 13033, 13046, 13091, 13094, 13126, 13150, 13363, 13395, 7007, 7012, 7031, 7110, 7117, 7118, 7125, 7133, 7142, 7164, 7168, 7173, 7177, 7186, 7187, 7202, 7217, 7226, 7228, 7239, 7241, 7341, 7345, 7394, 7396, 7408, 7411, 7412, 7472, 7476, 7478, 7481, 7483, 7491, 7500, 7502, 7507, 7513, 7518, 7526, 7527, 7535, 7545, 7549, 7628, 7654, 7702, 7704, 7705, 7738, 7752, 7753, 7759, 7764, 7765, 7766, 7783, 7786, 7809, 7833, 7836, 7847, 7856, 7870, 7892, 7933, 7949, 7958, 7968, 8022, 8030, 8075, 8081, 8085, 8096, 8103, 8109, 8117, 8121, 8139, 8192, 8209, 8210, 8211, 8302, 8411, 8457, 8629, 8636, 8652, 8656, 8691, 8727, 8747, 8749, 8755, 8820, 8830, 8838, 8855, 8865, 8867, 8870, 8884, 8898, 8906, 8926, 9008, 9377, 9461, 9466, LR13446, 9421PET 11456, 11584, 11674, 12373, 12378, 12668, 8926, 9155
198
10.3.51
The drive strategy and associated use of this site needs to be reconsidered. In particular, the Kirtling Street site could be expanded and the tunnel driven from there to Acton Storm Tanks.
Refer to paragraph 2.5.18 for our response to this feedback comment.
10-14
Ref 10.3.52
Objections, issues and concerns Socio-economic effects arising from selecting a particular site should take precedence over environmental / green considerations.
Respondent ID 7012, 7020, 7035, 7142, 7173, 7177, 7397, 7438, 7512, 7513, 7527, 7537, 7628, 7671, 7693, 7763, 7795
No. 17
Our response Community (which includes socio-economic issues) and environmental considerations have both been examined (alongside engineering, planning and property considerations) as part of our site selection process. No one issue takes precedence over another, however all relevant factors are examined by the project team and a judgement made as to the suitability of a site, taking into account all relevant considerations. We believe that our assessments, which have been carried out in accordance with the Site selection methodology paper, are comprehensively explained in appendix G of the Phase two scheme development report. Refer to paragraph 10.3.47 for our response to this feedback comment.
10.3.53
Selection of this preferred site has been poorly justified/inadequately explained. In particular: - the benefits of site selection do not outweigh the nuisance that it will cause - no explanation of why a residential area is considered suitable - the site will be more costly and disruptive to local residents - use of this site would result in unnecessary cost - would like further information regarding the relative costs and benefits associated with using this site - site selection has been poorly thought through - unclear why the site now meets the site size criteria when previously it was too small - reasons why the site was unsuitable at phase one consultation.
7331LO, 11559, 12019, 12684, 12696, 12821, 12824, 7121, 7193, 7244, 7250, 7346, 7396, 7427, 7432, 7439, 7541, 7833, 7856, 7869, 7876, 8037, 8096, 8413, 8528, 9303
26
Refer to paragraph 10.3.40 for our response to this feedback comment. Refer to paragraphs 10.3.38 and 10.3.58 for our response to this feedback comment.
10.3.54
Reasons for selecting the site are flawed/questionable. In particular: - it is not necessary to use this site
- the site is not a 'brownfield' site
LBHF, 13397LO, 8807LO, 8843LO, 9400LO, 9417LO, 9481LO, 11013, 11100, 11121, 11236, 11263, 11284, 11332, 11361, 11509, 12005, 12281, 12407, 12440, 12529, 12530, 12556, 12715, 12725, 12744, 12765, 12849, 12980, 13011, 13094, 13136, 13205, 13233, 7156, 7196, 7201, 7242, 7364, 7396, 7427, 7428, 7491, 7513, 7532, 7618, 7628, 7694, 7700, 7752, 7753, 7759, 7764, 7765, 7766, 7783, 7786, 7794, 7809, 7824, 7847, 7892, 7958, 8011, 8021, 8027, 8111, 8209, 8218, 8294, 8404, 8629, 8727, 8884, 9346, 9443, 9460, LR9418
78
Refer to paragraph 10.3.53 for our general response to this feedback comment. In relation to the specific points raised, refer to our responses below. We do not agree. The reasons why this site is needed are set out in chapter 6 and appendix G of Phase two scheme development which is supported by our Engineering options report and Site selection background technical paper. Carnwath Road Riverside is a previously developed site. The National Planning Policy Framework defines previously developed land as land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes: .... land in built-up areas such as private residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously-developed but where the remains of the
10-15
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
- the feasibility of barge access is unproven and good access to the Transport for London Route Network has not been tested - it is wrongly stated Carnwath Road Riverside benefits from rail access - Thames Water has misapplied or ignored its own methodology and principals in selecting Carnwath Road Riverside as a preferred site - the development value of the site (100mln) has not been taken into account - Whiffen Wharf is not safeguarded and the long-term safeguarded status of Hurlingham Wharf is currently under review - not all planning policies have been taken into account - full impact assessments have not been undertaken - mitigation proposed is unsatisfactory/ poorly developed - there are hidden political and financial agendas.
Our response permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time. Previously developed land is commonly referred to as brownfield. Refer to paragraphs 10.5.300 and 10.5.327 for our response to this feedback comment.
It is not clear where this alleged reference is made. As part of the site selection process we have not assumed that rail access would provide a viable mechanism for transporting material. Refer to paragraph 10.3.40 for our response to this feedback comment.
Refer to paragraph 10.5.188 for our response to this feedback comment. Refer to paragraph 10.5.7 for our response to these feedback comments.
In identifying our preferred sites, we have followed the methodology set out in the Site selection methodology paper. Political pressure has not played any part in our site selection process and we have no hidden financial agenda. 11379, 12675 2 Site selection has involved a multidisciplinary approach and has considered community (including socio-economic) and environmental factors alongside planning (including policies on sustainable development), engineering and property considerations. We are satisfied that our approach takes full account, at a strategic level, of environmental issues. Refer to paragraph 2.3.60 for further information regarding why we consider the Thames Tunnel project to be more generally sustainable. The previous uses of a site were taken into account along with other considerations as set out in the Site selection methodology paper. We
10.3.55
Site selection appears unsustainable/not environmentally friendly.
10.3.56
Previous uses of the site present development constraints.
9461
10-16
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response do not consider that the previous uses of the site present development constraints. Cost is one of the considerations that inform site assessments, but it is not an overriding factor that outweighs all other engineering, planning, environmental, community, property and wider economic considerations. High acquisition costs alone would not outweigh positive considerations such as use of brownfield land, conformity with planning policy, and the ability to construct/operate the proposed works on the site. Equally, a low value site would not result in a site becoming our preferred site, if there were significant planning, engineering, environmental or community concerns associated with its use. In determining our preferred site, we made a balanced judgement taking planning, environment, engineering, property and community considerations into account. The Site selection background technical paper, which accompanies the Site selection methodology paper, specifies the sizes for CSO and main tunnel sites. We have used these criteria to select our preferred sites. Carnwath Road Riverside is therefore an appropriate size to accommodate our proposals. We note that following selection of Carnwath Road Riverside as our preferred site, the Secretary of State has issued an Article 25 Direction that prevents the determination of all planning applications that affect this site. We believe that this direction reinforces the conclusions of our site selection process. Refer to Site selection background technical paper for further details on appropriate site sizes for main tunnel sites. Our site selection process has had regard to possible likely significant effects on the local area and community, and the environmental impact assessment process will undertake further assessment and recommend any necessary mitigation measures. The environment and community assessments undertaken as part of site selection considered the number and nature of sensitive receptors as well as possible likely significant effects from traffic and construction works including noise, air quality and visual impact. We also considered likely significant effects on employment uses and possible conflict with planning policy that seeks to protect local amenity. Accordingly, we consider that the scale of possible likely significant effects on the local area and community has been adequately considered. For further details on the results of the site selection process, refer to appendix G of the Phase two scheme development report. In identifying our preferred sites, we have followed the methodology set out in the Site selection methodology paper. Political pressure has not played any part in our site selection process.
10.3.57
The cost of using the site is too high/not cost-effective. Specifically, the cost of using this site is higher than using Barn Elms. Thames Water has a duty to minimise costs since they will be passed on to Thames Water customers.
9392LO, 11689, 11946, 12030, 12491, 12675, 13064, 13124, 13131, 13186, 7127, 7193, 7201, 7217, 7263, 7343, 7397, 7422, 7435, 7438, 7439, 7519, 7523, 7562, 7564, 7567, 7669, 7751, 7769, 7833, 7949, 8142, 8313, 8543, 9461
35
10.3.58
The site is too small and does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposals. Specifically: - in order to accommodate the construction works, an industrial estate would need to be demolished - the site would be 50 per cent too small without two compulsory purchases.
13397LO, 9417LO, 9481LO, 11055, 12990, 12992, 13094, 13112, 7112, 7117, 7156, 7252, 7390, 7526, 7527, 7535, 7657, 7701, 7705, 7741, 7752, 7753, 7759, 7764, 7765, 7766, 7824, 7848, 7949, 8075, 8085, 8103, 8121, 8209, 8636, 8785, 8874
37
10.3.59
The scale of effects on the local area and community resulting from the selection of this site is unacceptable/ has not been properly considered.
277
10.3.60
Site selection has been influenced by pressure from politicians, celebrities and Non-Governmental Organisations. Thames Water is effectively placing a higher value on what is in fact a very small area of green space than on the quality of life of at least
9392LO, 9400LO, 11502, 11607, 12045, 12079, 12100, 12103, 12283, 12375, 12721, 13017, 13020, 13090, 13150, 13161, 13224, 13237, 7015, 7121, 7127, 7129, 7137, 7147, 7196, 7202, 7217, 7241, 7371, 7486, 7513, 7527, 7538,
39
10-17
Ref 10.3.61
Objections, issues and concerns 1,200 people. Insufficient information has been provided on alternative sites.
Respondent ID 7554, 7575, 7833, 8027, 8209, 9461 7413
No. 1
Our response We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. As part of this, we carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. Details of sites considered as part of the site selection process are described and illustrated throughout the phase two consultation material including the site information papers which provide an overview with the detail in appendix G Phase two scheme development report. We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient. The main tunnel search area and tunnel alignment generally follows the River Thames. This is an efficient route to connect CSOs on the north and south side of the river, minimises going under buildings and allows use of river transport during construction. In addition to the locational constraints for main tunnel sites, the sites need to fulfil other engineering requirements and planning, environment, property and community considerations. Given that we are searching for sites within central London and given the requirements that the sites need to fulfil, we did not consider it appropriate to exclude sites based on their use when compiling our longlist of sites. In relation to Carnwath Road Riverside, as set out in appendix G of the Phase two scheme development report, while we recognise that our proposals may have a potentially adverse effect on businesses operating out of the eastern part of the site, the other benefits of this site outweigh this consideration in this case. Any existing businesses would be assisted with relocation in line with our published A guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme. We consider there will be no likely significant effect on Hurlingham Retail Park. As set out in the Needs report, the Thames Tunnel project will address the water quality, ecological, aesthetic and health issues identified as supporting the need for the project. The Thames Tunnel project will also provide additional benefits for the sewer system, in terms of improving the operation and maintenance of the sewer network, and providing greater robustness and flexibility for the future impacts of population growth and changes in the pattern of rainfall due to climate change. Using a site for the Thames Tunnel project does not preclude the site being used for other uses once construction of the project is complete. The footprint of the permanent works required for the operation of the Thames Tunnel project is significantly smaller than the space required during its construction. The area not permanently required could be used for other uses that obtain planning permission. Refer to paragraph 2.2.32 for our response to feedback comments related to need and solution. It is incorrect that sites to construct the main tunnel have to be located at sites to intercept CSOs. We need to identify both types of site.
10.3.62
Site selection should avoid commercially established areas; in this particular instance established businesses would need to be relocated which would have significant impacts on current occupiers of the site. Furthermore, proposals may have an adverse impact on the Hurlingham Retail Park.
13365LO, 8807LO, 9417LO, 9481LO, 9495LO, 11303, 11305, 11409, 11446, 11699, 11741, 11806, 11816, 11864, 12130, 12785, 13105, 13218, 13363, 7020, 7164, 7217, 7342, 7507, 7702, 7752, 7764, 7765, 7766, 7809, 7833, 7949, 7958, 8030, 8075, 8108, 8121, 8537, 8838, 8884, 8926, 9428, 9466, LR9418
44
10.3.63
Proposals will bring no long-term benefit (legacy) to the local area.
7118, 7254, 7545, 7847
10.3.64
The site should be developed for other uses, 9495LO, 11800, 7504, 7535, 7547, 8022, 8139, 8684 including residential, shops, employment, leisure and/or uses that would benefit the local community.
10.3.65
Disagree with/not commenting on site selection due to wider objections to the proposed solution and/or the need for the project. It is understood that it is not necessary to use a site in this area as there are no CSOs to intercept in this location.
LBHF, 13397LO, 9110LO, 9392LO, 11020, 11072, 11073, 11123, 11124, 11128, 11133, 11253, 11254, 11284, 11372, 11407, 11590, 11644, 11690, 11709, 11740, 11754, 11811, 11821, 11830, 11836, 11988, 12062, 12107, 12151,
117
10-18
Ref
Respondent ID 12173, 12231, 12257, 12285, 12300, 12326, 12331, 12373, 12378, 12406, 12410, 12456, 12488, 12489, 12560, 12568, 12569, 12669, 12684, 12719, 12729, 12753, 12869, 12917, 12918, 12924, 12945, 12953, 13038, 13103, 13106, 13119, 13125, 13149, 13155, 13193, 13223, 13228, 13395, 7125, 7127, 7187, 7194, 7220, 7226, 7341, 7349, 7364, 7413, 7422, 7424, 7479, 7508, 7519, 7523, 7532, 7551, 7663, 7671, 7675, 7741, 7833, 7892, 8007, 8083, 8096, 8117, 8139, 8140, 8192, 8210, 8211, 8330, 8411, 8505, 8528, 8742, 8767, 8772, 8782, 8821, 8838, 8855, 8888, 9034, 9362, 9377 8537
No.
Our response
10.3.66
Site selection should avoid sites adjacent to or containing heritage assets.
10.3.67
Need more information in order to comment on site selection, including: full data comparison of the sites considered and the number of people who will be directly affected. Other concerns, issues and objections comments raised included: - will take all steps necessary to prevent the use of Carnwath Road Riverside, including the obtaining of necessary injunctions - Hammersmith and Fulham Council could have stopped the site from being used by re-zoning the site as greenfield - impression at a consultation meeting was that this site had been chosen just to
11033, 11593, 11827, 12415, 12726, 13107, 7793
The main tunnel search area and tunnel alignment generally follows the River Thames. This is an efficient route to connect CSOs on the north and south side of the river, minimises going under buildings and allows use of river transport during construction. In addition to the locational constraints for main tunnel sites, the sites need to fulfil other engineering requirements and planning, environment, planning and community considerations must be taken into account. As set out in the Site selection methodology paper, sites have not been identified which would be located within London's world heritage sites. This is in recognition of the historic importance of these sites. Given that we are searching for sites within central London and given the requirements that the sites need to fulfil, we did not consider it appropriate to exclude sites based on whether they included or were adjacent to other designated heritage assets when compiling our longlist of sites. Heritage matters are considered in the assessment of sites. For more information on the site selection process refer to paragraphs 10.3.1 and 10.3.2.
10.3.68
7285LO, 8843LO, 12539, 7117, 7127, 7216, 7241, 7267, 7564, 7571, 7616, 7628, 7633, 7671, 7673, 7741, 7763, 7869, 8864, 9460, 9461
21
Your comments are noted.
10-19
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns prove that the previous choice was not a viable option - given the significant changes that have occurred between phase one and phase two consultation, concerned that Thames Water have yet to identify the most optimal solution
Respondent ID
No.
Our response
As set out in the Carnwath Road Riverside site information paper and appendix G of the Phase two scheme development report, we consider that Carnwath Road Riverside is the most appropriate site because it is a brownfield site. The presence of wharves at this site combined with the width of the River Thames at this point would allow the use of larger barges to remove material excavated during construction of the main tunnel. There would be much less conflict with recreational users of the River Thames than at Barn Elms. Following the feedback from phase two consultation, we have considered the alternative sites suggested (see section 10.3 of this chapter) and the comments received in relation to site selection. As a result of this process, we still consider that Carnwath Road Riverside is the most appropriate site. Construction of the tunnel in this location is not expected to compromise the wider regeneration of the area or future redevelopment of the site. Landowners may have a statutory entitlement to claim compensation for the diminution on the value of their property due to the construction of the tunnel. Landowners include the council or local housing associations that own social housing in the area. In addition to the statutory process, we have published an Exceptional hardship procedure which sets out how we will assess claims from householders who contend that they are suffering exceptional hardship as a result of being unable to sell their property because it is potentially impacted by the currently published Thames Tunnel project proposals. We have also published A guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme which sets out details of compensation that would be available arising from damage or loss during construction, for required protection measures, and for compulsory purchase.
- Thames Water should confirm that all three other shortlist sites are still under active consideration and considered viable replacements to the preferred site - even at this stage, the proposals are having a negative effect on the local area - if Carnwath Road Riverside is selected, only the more privileged people will leave the area; the people who will remain will be those who can't afford to move house.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to shortlisted sites Table 10.3.4Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to shortlisted sites Ref 10.3.69 Supportive and neutral comments Any shortlisted site acceptable subject to appropriate mitigation. Respondent ID EH No. 1 Our response Based on our assessment we consider that, on balance, Carnwath Road Riverside is the most suitable. Refer to paragraph 10.3.29 for our reasons why. For further details on the results of the site selection process, refer to appendix G of the Phase two scheme development report.
10-20
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites Table 10.3.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites Ref 10.3.70 Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. 315 Our response Based on our assessment, we consider that while Barn Elms and Fulham Depot could potentially be suitable as a main tunnel sites, in comparison to our preferred site, we consider they are less suitable because: - Barn Elms - refer to paragraph 10.3.37 for our reasons - Fulham Depot is too small to accommodate all the works and no viable partner site could be identified. For further details on the results of the site selection process, refer to appendix G of the Phase two scheme development report.
The shortlisted site Barn Elms (site 1) is See annex C of this report unsuitable for the proposed use because: - wrong to use a greenfield/ MOL site when there is a brownfield alternative - site has high ecological value and is close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) - site offers environmental benefits, including urban cooling and reducing surface runoff which would be affected if the site was used for the project - playing fields are protected by various indicatives, such as the Queen Elizabeth II Fields in Trust and planning policy - site has a high recreational value, both for land and river based sports clubs, informal recreation, the Thames Path and National Cycle Network - impact on the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race - barge size restrictions would increase the number of barge movements - the local road infrastructure is unsuitable for heavy construction traffic and existing traffic would be exacerbated - proximity to residential areas and associated impact on residential amenity - exacerbation of existing air pollution issues and associated impact on residents health - there is a high pressure gas pipe running across the playing fields The shortlisted site Fulham Depot (site 3) is unsuitable for the proposed use because of potential impacts on adjoining businesses, including the Porcelanosa show room on the corner of Wandsworth Bridge/ Townmead Road. Object to the inclusion or referencing of Barn Elms (site 1) and Fulham Depot (site 3) as possible alternatives to the preferred site. The Fulham Depot is being brought forward for redevelopment and 8137LO, 9434LO, 11754, 13471, 13479, 7825, 7871, 7887, 7888, 7955, 7985, 8148, 8149, 8150, 8151, 8152, 8153, 8162, 8163, 8164, 8165, 8166, 8167, 8169, 8171, 8173, 8174, 8175, 8179,
10.3.71
103
10-21
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns consequently will not be available.
Respondent ID 8180, 8202, 8292, 8514, 8516, 8518, 8520, 8524, 8546, 8578, 8584, 8592, 8593, 8594, 8596, 8597, 8599, 8601, 8603, 8605, 8607, 8620, 8672, 8673, 8674, 8694, 8695, 8696, 8699, 8700, 8701, 8709, 8710, 8729, 8800, 8905, 8947, 8958, 8966, 8974, 9001, 9005, 9006, 9009, 9033, 9057, 9058, 9059, 9060, 9063, 9067, 9072, 9125, 9159, 9178, 9209, 9239, 9240, 9245, 9247, 9266, 9281, 9300, 9346, 9351, 9354, 9362, 9364, 9365, 9366, 9367, 9372, 9423, LR9276 13345LO, 13346LO, 13347LO, 13313, 13314, 13315, 13316, 13317, 13318, 13319, 13320, 13321, 13322, 13323, 13324, 13325, 13326, 13327, 13328, 13329, 13330, 13331, 13332, 13333, 13334, 13335, 13336, 13337, 13338, 13339, 13340, 13341, 13342, 13343, 13344, 13348, 13349, 13350, 13351, 13352, 13353, 13354, 13355, 13356, 13357, 13358, 13359, 13360, 13361, 13362, 13479, 8800, 9218, 9219, 9225, 9228, 9346, 9348, 9362, 9364, 9365, 9366, 9367, 9368, 9370
No.
Our response
10.3.72
Comments stating 'Why I love Barn Elms' that relate to open space and/or recreational value.
65
Shortlisted sites
10.3.73 No feedback comments were received in relation to the shortlisted sites.
10.4
10.4.1
Alternative sites
During the phase two consultation, respondents were invited to suggest alternative sites that they thought should be used to drive the main tunnel to Acton Storm Tanks and receive the main tunnel from Kirtling Street and Frogmore connection tunnel from Dormay Street instead of Carnwath Road Riverside (see question 3 of the phase two feedback form, provided in appendix J of the Main report on phase two consultation). The following sites were put forward as possible alternatives: Table 10.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to Carnwath Road Riverside Ref 10.4.2 Alternative site suggestions Carnwath Road Riverside. Reasons It is a brownfield site next to an industrial area which has been derelict for many years and has adequate space to undertake the construction works. The site offers lower construction costs, existing energy supply, and higher resale value and is considered Respondent ID 13494LO, 7128, 7160, 7302, 7744, 7754, 7825, 7832, 7835, 7839, 7884, 7885, 7887, 7888, 7891, 7895, No. 59 Our response This is our preferred site as set out in the Carnwath Road Riverside site information paper and appendix G of our Phase two scheme development report.
Preferred site
10-22
Ref
Alternative site suggestions
Reasons a better engineering solution. The core of the site is a safeguarded wharf and therefore provides good opportunities for use of the river to transport excavated material, which will reduce effects on local roads. The opportunities for barge use are less constrained than at Barn Elms. The site also has direct road access to major arterial routes. The site is earmarked for regeneration in a less residential area and it is considered that it will cause less disruption. It would not result in loss of recreational space and would create less disruption for recreational river users and the regular rowing races. There would be no impact on the Thames Path since it is already diverted and the site would have minimal impact on the environment. Permanent structures/landscaping could improve the site. The site is open space/greenfield which is preferable to a brownfield site. Respondents also query the robustness of conclusions regarding planning policy and undertaking temporary construction works on Metropolitan Open Land. It allows the CSO interception and main tunnel site to be combined, which is supported in Thames Water's site selection methodology. The impact on the natural environment does not outweigh the impact on local residents at Carnwath Road Riverside. The move away from Barn Elms is politically motivated. There would be reduced impact on local residents, since they are located further away from the site. This site would also have less impact on local
Respondent ID 7903, 7904, 7907, 7910, 7915, 7953, 7955, 7956, 7967, 7979, 7995, 8015, 8016, 8017, 8029, 8114, 8185, 8281, 8286, 8322, 8332, 8396, 8401, 8404, 8459, 8502, 8541, 8546, 8559, 8728, 8733, 8766, 8789, 8800, 8816, 8825, 8871, 8880, 9102, 9144, 9346, 9348, 9354
No.
Our response
Shortlisted sites 10.4.3 Barn Elms. See annex C of this report 253 We consider that Barn Elms is a less suitable site than our preferred site, Carnwath Road Riverside. Our reasons for this conclusion are set out in paragraph 10.3.29 and appendix G of the Phase two scheme development report.
10-23
Ref
Reasons Respondent ID businesses, schools and vulnerable communities. It is a larger size which will make construction easier, and would mean lower construction-related costs and require a shorter period of construction works. Despite the loss of open space, recreational use of the Barn Elms Playing Fields would not be affected. There is better road access/less local road congestion. Do not consider that river access is much reduced in comparison to Carnwath Road Riverside. Any restrictions that do exist can be overcome. It will be easier to restore the site once construction works are complete and the London Wetland Centre provides interim mitigation. It will be easier to mitigate the impact on recreational users. Any permanent structures would have reduced visual impact in comparison to Carnwath Road Riverside. It is next to a waste transfer site and industrial estates. The River Wandle could easily accommodate a piled deck platform over the river as a temporary raised structure in an industrial site to give additional space. The site has existing river access and is close to a rail line, both of which would reduce the need to use road. Any permanent structures would have less of a visual impact. 7673, 7741, 8124
No.
Our response
10.4.4
Feathers Wharf.
Feathers Wharf is only big enough to be used as a main tunnel reception site. We have explored whether it would be possible to expand the size of the site so that it could be used as a main tunnel drive site. To do this, decking would need to be constructed over the River Wandle which would have significant effects on this water body. The site does not have barge access and therefore it would not be possible to remove excavated material by water. Use of barges is an important consideration when identifying suitable main tunnel drive sites due to the large amount of material that needs to be removed. The site access is also constrained and there is high density residential housing adjacent to the site. This means that, based on our preferred drive strategy (ie, drive the tunnel from Carnwath Road Riverside to Acton Storm Tanks) the site cannot be considered as an alternative to Carnwath Road Riverside since it is not a suitable size. For further details refer to appendix G of the Phase two scheme development report. We have identified other shortlisted sites. Based on our assessment of these sites, we consider that they are less suitable. Appendix G of the Phase two scheme development report sets out in detail the other sites considered and the reasons why we consider the sites less suitable.
10.4.5
One of the shortlisted sites already identified.
These sites are less residential and less frequented by traffic.
7050
Other sites
10-24
Ref 10.4.6
Alternative site suggestions Acton Storm Tanks.
Reasons Would reduce the number of sites and could minimise the impacts.
Respondent ID 8725
No. 1
Our response We do not consider that Acton Storm Tanks is appropriate as a main tunnel drive site. This is because large volumes of excavated material are produced at main tunnel sites and there are no viable river or rail options for transport of excavated material in the vicinity of this site. This would therefore require large number of heavy goods vehicle (HGV) movements which we do not consider appropriate due to the environment effects that would arise. Therefore, we consider that Acton Storm Tanks is only suitable as a main tunnel reception site. Refer to paragraph 2.5.18 for our response to these feedback comments.
10.4.7
Kirtling Street.
It is a large brownfield/derelict site in an industrial area, where redevelopment is already planned. It would also provide an appropriate site for the long tunnel drive to Acton Storm Tanks, removing the need for Carnwath Road Riverside. Thames Water is already considering using this site. The site is in a less residential area so would have fewer impacts on residential amenity and educational facilities. It would also not result in direct loss of employment or employment space which meets an identified need. Any affected businesses could also be relocated. The site also has good river and road access and, although a diversion of the Thames Path is required, it would not alter the point at which direct access along the river is resumed. The site is located on the River Thames, where 24-hour access would go unnoticed. Overall, works would result in less environmental impact due to the existing poor environmental quality of the area. It is a large brownfield/derelict site, which is further away from residential properties. The site has good road and water access with existing wharfage. Any permanent structures would have less of an impact. All excavated material could easily be handled at this site. Generally larger brownfield sites are in mostly non-residential areas and so would cause less disruption.
LBHF, 9417LO, 9481LO, 7469, 7476, 7499, 7502, 8047, 8091, 8210, 8218, 8494, 8648, 8656, 8743, 8838, 8891, 8926, LR9418, 9474, 11283, 11358, 11425, 11479, 11487, 11520, 11523, 11558, 11694, 11699, 11700, 11758, 11787, 11805, 11828, 11904, 11911, 11924, 11968, 12057, 12058, 12098, 12275, 12392, 12404, 12554, 12705, 12722, 12864, 12881, 13175, LR13438, 7633 7168, 7367, 7369, 7384, 7497, 7851, 8683, 8725, 11355, 12458, 12749, 12801, 13155, 7673 8027, 7517, 11324, 11520, 11523, 11307,
53
10.4.8
Battersea Power Station.
14
10.4.9
Nine Elms/Battersea.
13
10-25
Ref
Reasons
Respondent ID 11433, 11548, 11561, 11592, 11648, 11878, 11902 11008 13092 7616
No.
Our response
10.4.10 10.4.11 10.4.12
Battersea Park. Ranelagh Garden. Ranelagh Estate.
Less impact on the local community. It is a better option. Acknowledge that this would require purchasing of homes and re-housing of residents but believe that option should be considered. Less impact on the residential area and schools. The existing road network has greater capacity. It is a less residential area and the existing road network has more capacity. It is a brownfield site which is further from residential areas.
1 1 1
10.4.13
Beckton Sewage Works.
7968
10.4.14
Abbey Mills Pumping Station.
7549
10.4.15
Tideway Walk, Nine Elms
8734
Refer to paragraph 2.5.18 for our response to this feedback comment. In addition, Tideway Walk is no longer available for use because planning permission for residential development has been approved and construction works have started on site. We did identify and consider this site but it did not progress beyond the draft shortlist stage of the site selection process due to multiple constraints, including planning and environment designations within a residential area where there is a lack of alternative recreation facilities. We did identify and consider this site but it did not progress beyond the draft shortlist stage of the site selection process due to multiple constraints, including environment and heritage designations and in particular the scheduled ancient monument. We did identify and consider this site. However, it did not progress beyond the draft shortlist stage. This is due to multiple constraints, one of which is that the site is upstream of Hammersmith Bridge so has severe river and navigational limitations. On this basis it was not considered suitable as a main tunnel drive site. We did identify and consider this site. The site is currently used by the Western Riverside Waste Regulation Authority who manages waste delivered to it by LBHF, the London Borough of Lambeth (LBLam), LBW and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC). This is a key waste infrastructure site that is well used and is therefore not available for use as part of the Thames Tunnel project. We did identify and consider these sites. Both sites have planning permission for high density residential developments which are under construction, so are not available for use as part of the Thames Tunnel project.
10.4.16
Wandsworth Park.
It is a less residential, more isolated area, which could be reinstated after works are complete. It is a less residential area.
7544
10.4.17
Bishops Place Park.
7544
10.4.18
Furnival Gardens.
It has direct access to the A4 and Thames Water's proposals would be preferable to other development.
7905, 12791
10.4.19
Wandsworth Dump across the river from Carnwath Road/by the tip.
It is a non-residential area and has the necessary infrastructure in place for HGVs.
7346, 7400, 7571, 12811
10.4.20
Left or right of Bell Lane Creek (Smugglers Way Car Park or Osiers Road).
It is a more suitable location as it is an industrial area and therefore likely to have less impact on local residents. The site also has good
7284
10-26
Ref 10.4.21
Alternative site suggestions Putney/Putney Foreshore.
Reasons road access. it would affect fewer people and the site could be restored postconstruction.
Respondent ID 7671, 7678
No. 2
Our response In developing our site selection methodology, we reviewed whether it would be technically possible to construct a main tunnel site within the foreshore of the River Thames. As set out in the Site selection background technical paper, main tunnel sites must be on land, because the size of the main tunnel drive sites required during the construction phase means it would not be practical to accommodate them on platforms entirely in the river. Once the tunnel is operational, the shaft would be used to provide access to the tunnel network. The tunnel must also satisfy health and safety requirements regarding safe egress from the tunnel by the workforce in an emergency. It becomes more difficult to satisfy these requirements when sites are located within the river. It is therefore not feasible to use a site on the foreshore at Putney. Falconbrook Pumping Station has been identified through the site selection process as being suitable as a CSO interception site. A smaller site is needed for CSO interception and therefore the suggested site is not large enough to accommodate works associated with a main tunnel site. In relation to using the Putney Hospital grounds for a main tunnel site, we considered that this was unsuitable because it would require the main tunnel to be brought inland instead of being located under the River Thames, resulting in the tunnel running under many residential properties/other buildings. The site is also located between a residential area and Putney Lower Common, so we do not agree that there would be no disruption to the local community. As a result of these two factors, we do not consider this site suitable. Areas near the disused Putney Hospital were considered as CSO sites to intercept the West Putney Storm Relief CSO, but were not considered suitable for main tunnel sites. For further details on our assessment of the West Putney Storm Relief CSO, refer to appendix C of the Phase two scheme development report. This site has been considered. In appendix G of our Phase two scheme development report this site has been referred to as Land at Lots Road, Chelsea Harbour (ref no S86HF) and the land north of Chelsea Harbour Drive forms part of the Lots Road Power Station planning application site. The site was rejected as a main tunnel drive site because it was a development site, where development had or was soon to commence and this planning status would increase acquisition costs to an unacceptable level. Furthermore, it is understood that development has commenced on site and there is a current application (ref 2011/03122/FUL) that seeks consent for a reduction in the total number of residential units to be provided from 382 to 297. In addition, we need to build a 1.7m step into the main tunnel upstream of a new National Grid cable tunnel which is being constructed beneath the Carnwath Road Riverside site. At this site is downstream of Carnwath Road Riverside it does not enable us to incorporate the 1.7m
10.4.22
Falconbrook Pumping Station.
Brownfield sites are far more suitable due to a lesser impact on the residential community and businesses. The site has good road access. It has sufficient space and would not result in disruption to the local community.
8075, 9089
10.4.23
Grounds of closed hospital, Barn Elms area.
12821
10.4.24
Vacant, boggy land immediately to the south of Chelsea Creek.
9461
10-27
Ref
Reasons
Respondent ID
No.
Our response step into the tunnel and thereby would present us with significant difficulties in designing a vertical alignment that would meet the hydraulic requirements of the tunnel and maintain satisfactory clearances to other tunnels. We have considered a significant number of sites on both sides of the River Thames between Hammersmith and Albert Bridges as set out in appendix G of the Phase two scheme development report. The sites that as a result of our assessment were considered suitable, were presented at phase two consultation for comment. Sites upstream of Hammersmith are not considered suitable due to river navigation and barging constraints. In relation to narrowing our search to particular types of sites, the methodology requires that we do not prejudge where or what type of site we may find by excluding certain sites or emphasising certain factors above all others. We have therefore looked at sites in non-residential areas and greenfield sites.
10.4.25
Chiswick/Hammersmith.
It is a non-residential area with good road access, so would have less impact. Sites along the river would allow river transport. The preferred site is too close to major roads. The site should be located where it will affect the fewest people and cost the least. Sites south of the river are less disruptive to the local community and have better road access. There are non-residential areas and some sites are close to the river or have good road access. It is close to the river so has good access. It is close to the river so has good access. It is close to the river so has good access. There are non-residential areas and some sites are close to the river or have good road access. Should seek sites with lower population density thereby avoiding traffic congestion issues and impact on residential amenity.
7125, 7380, 7380, LR13423
10.4.26
A site that will not affect the traffic flow over Wandsworth Bridge. South of the river.
7192, 7540, 821, 8278LO, 7197, 7284, 7378, 7399, 7412
10.4.27
10.4.28
A site south of the River Thames including Richmond and Wandsworth. Syon Park, part of Duke of Northumberland Estate. Warren Farm. Part of Kew Green. Brentford and Barnes.
7179, 13079, 7236 11784 11784 11784 11784, 8294
10.4.29 10.4.30 10.4.31 10.4.32
1 1 1 2
10.4.33
Outside of south-west London and not within central London.
8843LO, 11753, 12684, 13079, 7269, 7780, 13060, 7148, 7430, 7913, 11008, 7391
12
The suggested alternative sites are outside of the area defined by the Site selection methodology paper. This is because the start of the main tunnel in west London must be in the vicinity of the most western CSO that we need to intercept. The most western CSO that we need to intercept is Acton Storm Relief CSO. Areas which are west of this point are not within the scope of the Thames Tunnel project. In addition, the suggested site/area is upstream of Hammersmith Bridge, which means there are severe barging and navigational constraints in relation to using the River Thames to transport excavated material and materials for the construction of the main tunnel. Use of river transport is one of the considerations used for identifying suitable main tunnel sites. For further information refer to the Site selection methodology paper and Site selection background technical paper.
10.4.34
Respondents also made the following comments regarding the availability and identification of alternative sites: Supportive and neutral comments Table 10.4.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites Ref 10.4.35 Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID No. 1 Our response Your support is welcomed and noted.
There are no alternative sites available; 7404 Thames Water has done their best to survey alternative sites.
10-28
Ref 10.4.36
Supportive and neutral comments Presume that given the studies carried out, Thames Water should have good alternative sites already identified. Thames Water is best able to decide on this alternative site if Barn Elms does not suit the purpose. Proposals seem sensible. Have not studied any alternative sites. Not sure/no particular alternative in mind.
Respondent ID 7510
No. 1
Our response
10.4.37
7702
10.4.38 10.4.39 10.4.40
7777 7120 7540, 7192, 7553, 7791, 8113
1 1 5 Your comments are noted.
Objections, issues and concerns Table 10.4.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites Ref 10.4.41 Objections, issues and concerns Whichever site is an alternative, it must be better placed to face the disruption that all this involves, and without impacting on so many people's lives. It is the responsibility of Thames Water (and their consultants) to identify sites. Not the role of consultees to suggest alternatives sites, we merely oppose bad options. It is both improper and quite ridiculous of Thames Water to ask the general public to suggest alternative sites. Not an expert/not qualified/do not have the knowledge to comment. Respondent ID 7663 No. 1 Our response Based on our assessment we consider that, on balance, Carnwath Road Riverside is the most suitable site with appropriate mitigation. All other potential alternative sites have been considered and assessed against the site selection methodology and are considered to be less suitable. The purpose of consultation is to explore as fully as possible what those with an interest in the project think about our proposals. We will have regard to comments received from both technical and non-technical consultees.
10.4.42 10.4.43
7519, 8330 7242
2 1
10.4.44
7521
10.4.45
7120, 7220, 7521, 7663, 7680, 7876,
10.5
10.5.1 10.5.2
Management of construction works

This section sets out feedback comments received during the phase two consultation in relation to the management of construction works at Carnwath Road Riverside. This includes the identification of site specific issues arising from construction activities and proposals to address the effects of these issues. During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with Carnwath Road Riverside during construction 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 dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in tables 10.5.1 and 10.5.2. Tables 10.5.3 to 10.5.46 detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments confirmed whether the right issues and the ways to address those issues had been identified.
10-29
Table 10.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q4a) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 1 11 497 0 509 147 293 69 1 146 1 - LBHF 9 283 1 68 Yes No Dont know/ unsure
Table 10.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q4b) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total 10.5.3 Number of respondents Total 0 1 11 495 0 507 67 377 63 67 1 - LBHF 9 367 2 61 Yes No Dont know/ unsure
The following sections set out the feedback comments received from respondents in connection with the identification of key issues associated with Carnwath Road Riverside during construction and our proposals to address these issues. Comments are organised under common themes. The themes are: General themes General feedback comments on key issues General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues Topic based themes Air quality and odour Construction working hours and programme Construction site design and layout Historic environment Land quality and contamination Lighting Noise and vibration Open space and recreation Planning and development Socio-economic Structures and utilities Townscape and visual
10-30
10 Carnwath Road Riverside Natural environment (aquatic) Natural environment (terrestrial) Transport and access Water and flood risk
General feedback comments on the identified key issues

Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the identified key issues 10.5.4 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to general comments on the identified key issues. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues Table 10.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to key issues during construction Ref 10.5.5 10.5.6 Objections, issues and concerns The wrong/none of the key issues have been identified. Identification and description of potential effects and key issues is too vague/general/not satisfactorily explained. The scale of potential effects has not been properly assessed and/or underestimated. Respondent ID 7795 8528, 8884 No. 1 2 Our response The key issues in the Carnwath Road Riverside site information paper are intended to provide a broad overview of likely significant effects and key issues associated with the site during construction. It is not however an exhaustive list. A more detailed description of possible likely significant effects and the methodology through which they have been identified is and assessed is provided in other technical reports, including the PEIR (volume 13) Phase two scheme development report and site selection methodology and background papers. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Providing a balanced analysis in our consultation material was imperative and we do not agree that the material was biased in our favour, inaccurate or misleading. All the material presented contained necessary information for consultees to understand our proposals, make their own judgements and provide feedback over the consultation period. An overview leaflet was included with the notification letters sent to community consultees in the vicinity of our preferred sites. The overview leaflet summarised our proposals and described likely significant effects, including at our preferred sites, in clear, accessible and non-technical language. The information provided also made it clear how consultees could find more information on the project including on our website, at one of our exhibitions or by calling a dedicated phone line. In total we sent 129,515 letters, overview leaflets and language line information sheets to residents with an interest in the project. However, given the volume and size of documents, direct delivery of all documentation was not feasible. Outcome N N
10.5.7
11470, 11550, 11829, 12172, 12308, 12476, 12524, 12732, 12757, 12863, 12865, 12947, 13169, 13191, 13226, 7346, 7364, 7375, 7523, 7865, 8027, 8528, 8855 7129, 7514, 7524, 7550, 7686, 7900, 8043
23
10.5.8
There are more key issues than those identified in the site information paper.
10.5.9
Information provided on the key issues is misleading/insufficient/flawed.
7513
10.5.10
Information relating to key issues should be provided directly to affected residents.
7050, 7692
10-31
Ref 10.5.11
Objections, issues and concerns Difficult to identify precisely what the potential effects are from the consultation material due to volume and/or complexity.
Respondent ID 7050
No. 1
Our response Our approach to producing phase two consultation materials sought to achieve a balance between the amount of general and technical information provided. We aimed to provide information in a form accessible for all to understand, while still providing sufficient information to comment on the issues we highlighted eg effects arising from the construction and operational phases. We also produced A guide to phase two consultation which provided further information on what information was available on different topics to aid navigation of the documentation produced. At each exhibition, members of staff were also available to answer any questions attendees may have had on our proposals. Members of the public could also access support through a dedicated phone line. Our approach to producing material was that information should be made available to members of the community in an accessible form and detailed technical information be made available for technical consultees and is consistent with the guidance provided by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in its guidance on pre-application consultation. Refer to our response at paragraph 10.3.29 above.
Outcome N
10.5.12
Identification of key issues is irrelevant since 7102, 7259 the site should not have been selected in the first place. If the correct issues had been identified, this site would not have been selected. The number and/or type of key issues associated with the site is inconsistent with the decision to select it as the preferred site/indicates that this site should not have been selected. More fundamental issues regarding the site's selection, its suitability and alternative sites have not been addressed/recognised. 7135 7137, 7228
10.5.13 10.5.14
1 2
N N
10.5.15
13363, 7671, 8505
10.5.16
Key issues identified for this site would not 7173 need to be addressed and/or could be better dealt with at other alternative sites. Key issues cannot be fully identified until construction begins. 7486
10.5.17
We are developing a Code of construction practice (CoCP) which will set out how we will manage our construction sites to minimise disruption to nearby communities. During construction, we will require all contractors to be fully certified under the Considerate Constructors Scheme. These measures will allow us to identify any unforeseen effects arising from construction and put in place suitable measures to manage them.
10-32
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response We are also undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. We have given equal consideration to likely significant effects arising during construction and once the tunnel is operational. Proximity to residential areas and the likely significant effect of the proposals on residential amenity was taken into account along with other considerations as set out in the Site selection methodology paper. In particular, the environment and community assessments undertaken as part of site selection had regard to the location and nature of sensitive receptors. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of likely significant effects arising from our proposals such as traffic, noise, air quality and visual impact. The findings of the assessment together with any recommendations for mitigation will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. We are also developing a CoCP which will set out how we will manage our construction sites to minimise disruption to nearby communities. During construction, we will require all contractors to be fully certified under the Considerate Contractors Scheme. These measures will allow us to identify any unforeseen effects arising from construction and put in place suitable measures to manage them. The measures set out in the Carnwath Road Riverside site information paper are intended to provide a broad overview of how we intend to address likely significant issues associated with the site. Further information can be found in the draft CoCP and PEIR (volume 13). Measures proposed to address likely significant effects are being further developed and considered as part of the environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. As set out in the draft CoCP, contractors will be required to manage sites and achieve formal certification under the Considerate Constructors Scheme. For each site, contractors will be required to achieve a minimum score
Outcome
10.5.18
Long-term effects are more important than those occurring during the construction period.
7168, 7276
10.5.19 10.5.20 10.5.21
Key questions and issues have been 7217 avoided, such as the impact on human lives. Wish to register concerns regarding disruption associated with construction. There is no guarantee that the issues identified at this stage will reflect the reality of construction. 11380, 11842, 11878, 11948, 11949, 12179, 12244, 12970 7230, 7431, 7534, 7680, 8683
1 8 5
N N N
10.5.22
Whilst Thames Water may have identified the right key issues, the solutions put forward to address them are unsatisfactory.
7244, 7345, 7364, 7439, 7466, 7474, 7514, 7532, 7567, 7816, 7913, 8106
12
10.5.23
Contractors should commit to achieving 34 points or more in the Considerate Constructors Scheme.
9337
10-33
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response (four out of five) for each section (maximum score = 40). Should the site not be able to achieve a score of 32, an explanation indicating that the highest possible score has been achieved will be required from the contractor. The standards which contractors will be expected to commit to will be kept under review. We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. As part of this, we carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. This included details of the layout of the site during each of the construction phases as provided in the Carnwath Road Riverside site information paper. Further details regarding the construction period can also be found in the PEIR (volume 13) and the draft CoCP. We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient. There is no significance attached to the ordering of the issues. The order was not intended to reflect the relative importance of the identified issues. We have considered both construction and operational issues. Information on key issues associated with the site once it is operational is set out in the Carnwath Road Riverside site information paper. Further information relating to likely significant effects both during construction and operational can be found in the PEIR (volume 13). The measures proposed to address likely significant effects are being developed further and considered as part of the environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.
Outcome
10.5.24
Need more information on the design and layout of the construction site and the construction period generally.
8241
10.5.25
Other general construction issues and comments included: - the ordering of the issues is wrong - for example disrupting access to the yacht club pier is listed above noise and health issues
- operational issues also need to be
8209, 8821, LR13474
N N
considered
- regardless of what/how the issues are
identified and addressed, there are fundamental and hugely negative impacts that will still occur.
General 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 10.5.4 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to measures to address the key issues during construction Ref 10.5.26 Supportive and neutral comments Measures to address potential issues are satisfactory. Respondent ID 8742 No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted and welcomed.
10-34
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues Table 10.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures to address the key issues during construction Ref 10.5.27 Objections, issues and concerns Measures to address potential effects are unsatisfactory/irrelevant as the wrong site has been identified/alternatives have not been properly considered. Identified issues can/should be avoided/addressed by changing the preferred site. Measures to address potential issues are unsatisfactory/unconvincing. Respondent ID 7228, 7250, 7561, 7673, 7751, 8192, 8494, 8678, 8749 No. 9 Our response Refer to our response at paragraph 10.3.29 above. Outcome N
10.5.28
7913
10.5.29
7050, 7129, 7156, 7201, 7250, 7345, 7361, 7390, 7438, 7463, 7466, 7472, 7481, 7486, 7514, 7523, 7527, 7550, 7566, 7618, 7647, 7668, 7673, 7675, 7687, 7816, 7833, 7848, 7865, 7869, 7870, 7876, 7894, 7913, 7933, 8038, 8117, 8211, 8215, 8451, 8678, 8724, 8747, 8749, 8855, 8898 7440, 8327, 8543
46
10.5.30
Measures to address potential effects are unsatisfactory because the wrong/not all issues have been identified. Measures to address potential effects are unsatisfactory because the scale and/or significance of the issues has been underestimated/not properly assessed. Responses to key issues are based on the assumption that the scale of the effects will be low/minimal. Thames Water cannot guarantee that potential effects will be satisfactorily addressed and/or reduced. Measures suggested to address the issues show no commitment towards/devolves Thames Waters responsibility to deal with the effects arising from their proposals.
10.5.31
7514, 7523, 7524, 7876, 7900, 8505, 8543, 8747
The key issues set out in the site information paper are intended to provide a broad overview of likely significant effects and key issues associated with the site during construction. It is not however an exhaustive list. Further likely significant issues associated with the site and measures to address these are set out in the PEIR (volume 13) and our draft CoCP. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.
10.5.32
7375, 7391
10.5.33
13235, 7156, 7618, 7680, 8460
10.5.34
7201, 7393, 7816, 7876
10.5.35
Measures proposed to address potential effects may minimise or manage them, but they cannot be eliminated/prevented.
13235, 7412, 7894, 7900, 7913
We have sought to avoid or eliminate likely significant effects wherever possible, both through construction site design and layout and by adopting suitable measures to manage construction activities. We are developing a CoCP which will set out how we will manage our construction sites to minimise disruption to nearby communities. During construction, we will require all contractors to be fully certified under the Considerate Constructors Scheme. These measures will allow us to identify any unforeseen effects arising from construction and put in place suitable measures to manage them. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of the likely significant effects arising from the proposals, the methodology for which has been prepared in line with the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009. The findings of the assessment, together
10-35
Ref 10.5.36
Objections, issues and concerns Responses to key issues provide no guarantee that effects will be managed, controlled and/or avoided.
Respondent ID 7375, 7393, 7680, 8724, 8898
No. 5
Our response Outcome with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as N a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. If a Development Consent Order (DCO) is granted we would anticipate a series of requirements (similar to planning conditions) that would control the development. We expect that the requirements would secure the provision of the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental Statement and stipulate that the development must be carried out in accordance with the agreed CoCP that will be submitted with the application. We have sought to understand the concerns of residents through our consultation process. The proposals presented at phase two consultation reflect the issues raised by local residents during previous consultation activities. The Interim engagement report provides details of how feedback from previous consultation activities has been taken into account. Phase two consultation was a further opportunity to explore the issues and concerns of local residents to make sure that, where possible, the principal concerns of local residents are taken into account. This Report on phase two consultation sets out our view on how we intend to respond to the feedback received during this phase of consultation. When we submit our DCO application for determination, it will be accompanied by a Consultation report that will set out how we have taken into account the feedback received across all phases of consultation. N
10.5.37
Measures to address potential effects do not 7285LO address the real concerns of local residents.
10.5.38
More information is needed on measures to address issues.
7035, 7876, 8855
We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and N comprehensive consultation exercise. As part of this, we carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. Our approach to producing material was that information should be made available to members of the community in an accessible form and detailed technical information be made available for technical consultees and is consistent with the guidance provided by the DCLG in its guidance on pre-application consultation. Information on proposed measures to address issues can be found in the PEIR (volume 13) and our draft CoCP. Measures proposed to address likely significant effects are being further developed and considered as part of the environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental
10-36
Ref 10.5.39 10.5.40
Objections, issues and concerns Thames Water has made the decision before embarking on consultation. Consultation feedback does not appear to have been taken into account by Thames Water.
Respondent ID 8081, 8111 7102, 7110, 7575
No. 2 3
Our response Statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. An integral part of the pre-application process is the legal requirement that we consult with the communities and stakeholders in the vicinity of the tunnel route and the sites we intend to use in constructing and operating the project and that we take account of all the comments received in response to consultation. We also need to comply with advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate and guidance the Secretary of State in respect of the pre-application consultation requirements. The process is intended to be open and transparent and to ensure that project promoters give careful consideration to consultation responses and where necessary adjust their proposals accordingly. We are committed to this approach. At phase one consultation, we consulted on need to reduce the amount of sewage entering the River Thames; implementing a storage and transfer tunnel as a solution to address CSO discharges; the route of the tunnel; our preferred construction sites; and sought views on our initial design proposals for the sites. Consistent with the legal requirement, the project we are consulting on at phase two consultation takes account of the responses we received from phase one consultation and further engineering design refinements identified by the project team. The Changes project information paper, which summarises the principal changes emerging from phase one consultation, shows that we are listening to the feedback we receive on our proposals and where possible are amending our proposals to reflect the concerns being raised. Further details can be found in the Phase two scheme development report. This Report on phase two consultation sets out our view on how we intend to respond to the feedback received during this phase of consultation. When we submit our DCO application for determination, it will be accompanied by a Consultation report that will set out how we have taken into account the feedback received across all phases of consultation.
Outcome N N
10.5.41
Other issues and comments relating to measures to address construction issues included: - paying lip service to local residents and changing locations based on profit is not the right approach - construction impacts must be minimised at every stage of construction
GLA, 7102, 7422, 7424, 7430, 7513, 7529, 7575, 7698, 7847, 8026, 8724
12
Cost was one of the considerations that inform site N assessments, but it is not an overriding factor that outweighs all other engineering, planning, environmental, community, property and wider economic considerations. High acquisition costs alone would not outweigh positive considerations such as the use of brownfield land, conformity with planning policy, and ability to construct/operate the proposed works on the site. Equally, a N
10-37
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns - Thames Water is not addressing construction impacts; it is just claiming that they don't exist - the assumptions underpinning the identification of issues are wrong - compromise would be less radical - there has been an 'agenda' from the start - there has been no attempt to measure or consult on an acceptable level of impact of various issues for local residents - consultation should allow the possibility of reversing the decision.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response low value site would not result in a site becoming our preferred site, if there were significant planning, environmental or community concerns associated with its use. In determining our preferred site, we made a balanced judgement, taking planning, environment, engineering, property and community considerations into account. We have sought to avoid or eliminate likely significant effects wherever possible by developing robust technical solutions to potential issues such as odour and through our proposals for the permanent site design and layout. We are also developing a CoCP which will set out how we will manage our construction sites to minimise disruption to nearby communities. The PEIR (volume 13), which was available for review and comment at phase two consultation, sets out the assessment methodology and assumptions on which the environmental impact assessment and identification of key issues is based. These assumptions and methodologies reflect industry best practice, and have been subject to extensive technical engagement as part of the environmental impact assessment scoping process. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. The feedback from phase two consultation has been subjected to careful analysis as presented in this report, which (in line with legislation and guidance) makes clear where we have made or are considering changes, ; where we are examining mitigation in response to the feedback; and where we are not making changes and the reasons for this.
Outcome N
N N N N
Air quality and odour

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour Table 10.5.6 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to air quality and odour during construction Ref 10.5.42 10.5.43 Supportive and neutral comments The proposals will ensure that odour is managed satisfactorily. The impacts on air quality will be less severe because the site is already located on a busy road. Air and dust pollution have been properly Respondent ID 7777 7801 No. 1 1 Our response Your comments are noted and welcomed.
10.5.44
11013, 11014, 11105, 11112, 11116,
31
10-38
Ref
Supportive and neutral comments addressed by the phase two consultation.
Respondent ID 11642, 11753, 11768, 11888, 11940, 11989, 12043, 12092, 12111, 12202, 12222, 12529, 12720, 12742, 12777, 12833, 12879, 13012, 13120, 13148, 13206, 13210, 13217, 7780, 7997, 8118 11014, 11112, 11565, 11675, 11757, 11888, 11989, 12720, 12726, 12742, 12777, 12783, 13012, 13015, 7997
No.
Our response
10.5.45
Not concerned by effect on air quality and dust nuisance.
15
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour Table 10.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during construction Ref 10.5.46 10.5.47 Objections, issues and concerns The potential effects will be greater than those set out in the consultation material. It is not clear what the scale of the effect will be/the assessment to date is very vague in respect of: air quality, traffic, the number of people that will be affected at each site, enough hard facts to justify site selection. Air and dust pollution have not been properly addressed by the phase two consultation. Respondent ID 7335, 7856, 8094 7515, 7569, 7793, 9460 No. 3 4 Our response Outcome
10.5.48
2,296
As part of our PEIR (volume 13, section 4) we assessed the N air quality, traffic and residential amenity of the proposed development, based on a methodology that was discussed N and agreed with LBHF. The PEIR (volume 13, section 4) which covered air quality and odour topics includes the dust mitigation measures that are set out in the draft CoCP. While we acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment, we believe that sufficient information was available for the N purposes of our phase two consultation. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of the likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Our Managing construction project information paper and draft CoCP set out how dust control measures and dust monitoring equipment would be put in place to minimise likely significant effects of dust from construction activities. Our draft CoCP confirms that an Air management plan will be prepared and implemented for each site to control dust emissions, with proposed techniques in line with best practice guidelines. Our preliminary assessment of air quality effects, as reported in our PEIR (volume 13, section 4), considered the likely significant effects of dust arising from the construction site. The report concluded that the effects of dust arising from construction would be reduced by the implementation of measures to be contained in the CoCP. Further assessment will be undertaken as part of our on-going environmental impact assessment work and this will be reported in the Environmental statement to be submitted with our DCO application. While not a formal requirement we are also preparing a N N
10.5.49 10.5.50
Dust and dirt arising from construction activities. Comments regarding the effects on health arising from dust. There are substantial studies referring to serious medical consequences of constant exposure to airborne pollutants and noxious gases including but not limited to skin diseases, cancer, lung failure, asthma, liver failure, toxic reactions, heart failure and permanent blindness.
See annex C of this report 7035, 7142, 7186, 7217, 7244, 7343, 7344, 7345, 7348, 7363, 7375, 7377, 7389, 7397, 7416, 7424, 7469, 7474, 7476, 7481, 7502, 7515, 7520, 7526, 7532, 7537, 7549, 7550, 7558, 7569, 7577, 7668, 7673, 7680, 7700, 7752, 7753, 7759, 7764, 7765, 7766, 7783, 7816, 7824, 7833, 7856, 7865, 7869, 7870, 7894, 7958, 8008, 8011, 8030, 8103, 8121, 8192, 8457, 8512, 8542,
2,381 67
10-39
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Health impact assessment for submission with the application. The Health impact assessment will assess the full range of potential health and well-being effects of the project on identified vulnerable groups. We have set out measures in our draft CoCP that will be adopted to limit vehicle and plant emissions, including using low emission vehicles, turning off engines when not needed, and minimising vehicle movements around the site. Our preliminary assessment, which is outlined in our PEIR (volume 13, section 4), sets out that with these measures in place we do not expect any significant local air quality effects arising from vehicle and plant emissions at this construction site. We are preparing a full assessment for submission within the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application this will include dispersion modelling. Dispersion modelling will assess the likely significant impacts of the construction phase at all proposed sites for the relevant short and long-term NO2 and PM10 air quality objectives. As a result of comments received during our phase two consultation we are considering the opportunities for further use of the river to transport materials during construction, which would reduce the number of lorries on local roads. Our preliminary assessment of air quality effects, as reported in our PEIR (volume 13, section 4), did not identify any likely significant effects near this site at residential properties or at the other identified sensitive receptors. These included commercial/leisure uses and Thomas's Fulham School. Eel Brook Common is a considerable distance from the site and has therefore not formed part of these site assessments. Further assessment of nearby properties will be undertaken as part of our on-going environmental impact assessment work and this will be reported in the Environmental statement to be submitted with our DCO application. Our draft CoCP confirms that an Air management plan will be prepared and implemented for each site, with proposed techniques in line with best practice guidelines. While not a formal requirement we are also preparing a Health impact assessment for submission with the application. The Health impact assessment will assess the potential likely significant health and well-being effects of the project on identified vulnerable groups. We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. As part of this, we carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had
Outcome
10.5.51
Effect of construction traffic emissions on air quality.
LC, 7148, 7199, 7343, 7386, 7412, 7499, 7520, 7577, 7824, 7856, 7870, 7898, 8030, 8037, 8042, 8045, 8111, 8404, 8411, 8414, 8652, 8656, 8724, 8867, 8963, 9061, 9461
28
10.5.52
Effect of construction site activities and plant 11835, 12136, 12352, 12996, 13046, emissions on air quality. 13142, 13161, 7519, 7533
10.5.53 10.5.54
General effect of construction activities on air quality and local schools.
2,380 5
N N
Effect of reduced air quality on residential GLA, 9400LO, 13145, 7471, 9460 amenity such as health particularly effects of PM10. Effect of reduced air quality on other sensitive receptors including schools and nurseries in the local area and Eel Brook Common. 7031, 7142, 7526, 8037, 8755
10.5.55
10.5.56
Effect of odour arising from construction activities.
LC, 9131LO, 11995, 12960, 7196, 7269, 7433, 7437, 7527, 7657, 7780, 7833, 7847, 7899, 7900, 8111, 8192, 8199, 8211, 8313, 8404, 8472, 8512, 8537,
35
10-40
Ref
Respondent ID 8542, 8656, 8755, 8874, 8888, 8898, 8906, 8926, 9008, 9337, 9461 7437, 7482, 7532, 7550, 7569, 8313 7031, 7482 7035, 7500, 7550, 7569, 7793, 7971, 8884
No.
10.5.57 10.5.58 10.5.59
Effect of odour on residential amenity. Effect of odour on other sensitive receptors such as the school. More information is needed on air quality and odour effects.
6 2 7
Our response sufficient information to respond to the consultation. This included our PEIR (volume 13, section 4) which sets out initial assessment of likely significant effects on air quality from construction site activities including construction traffic, temporary closure of road lanes, emissions from barges and construction and construction-generated dust. The proposals set out in our draft CoCP are included in the assessment. Odour is not addressed as there are not expected to be any construction effects. It is not expected that sewage odours would be emitted since there is no sewer interception at this location. Further assessment will be undertaken as part of our ongoing environmental impact assessment work and this will be reported in the Environmental statement to be submitted with our DCO application. If significant effects are identified appropriate mitigation would be proposed. Our DCO application will also include a CoCP that will set out measures that must be implemented by our contractor to address the potential effect son air quality during construction. Our draft CoCP confirms that an Air management plan would be prepared and implemented for each site, with proposed techniques in line with best practice guidelines. We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient. We have completed a preliminary environmental assessment of the effects of the proposed development, which is set out in our PEIR (volume 13, section 4) which considers the likely significant effects of our construction in respect of air quality, dust, odour, noise and vibration, which singularly or collectively might be classed as 'pollution'. This did not identify any likely significant effects at residential or other sensitive receptors (such as schools and school children) near this site. A full assessment of potential 'pollution' will be presented in the Environmental statement that we will submit with our DCO application. We have also produced a draft CoCP which sets out measures for managing our works, including sections on noise, vibration, and air quality as well as details of the various regulatory regimes and guidance with which we would need to comply, such as the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Mayor of London's Ambient Noise Strategy 2004 and The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition - Best Practice Guidance 2008, as well as various British Standards. Our compliance with the regulatory regime applicable will be monitored by LBHF.
Outcome
N N N
10.5.60
Effect of pollution, including on school children.
7331LO, 11101, 11102, 11188, 11321, 11348, 11383, 11413, 11477, 11658, 11664, 11689, 11695, 11792, 11802, 11899, 11946, 12039, 12136, 12179, 12236, 12241, 12271, 12324, 12383, 12469, 12506, 12675, 12696, 12847, 12884, 12904, 12913, 12978, 13026, 7118, 7168, 7177, 7202, 7232, 7241, 7252, 7276, 7358, 7389, 7474, 7505, 7507, 7510, 7513, 7520, 7526, 7534,
114
10-41
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour Table 10.5.8 Supportive and neutral comments relating to measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour issues during construction Ref 10.5.61 Supportive and neutral comments Mitigation proposed to address the issues is satisfactory, due to the shaft and crane within a building, subject to ensuring that it meets the noise and dust requirements. Respondent ID GLA, 9460 No. 2 Our response Your comments are noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour Table 10.5.9 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address the effects of air quality and odour issues during construction Ref 10.5.62 10.5.63 Objections, issues and concerns Mitigation proposed does not address issues such as pollution. Respondent ID 7365, 7380, 7472, 7537, 7557, 7639 No. 6 5 Our response Details of proposed mitigation measures were set out in the PEIR (volume 13, section 4) for the site as part of our phase two consultation. This identified that through the implementation of the CoCP no specific additional mitigation measures would be required at this site for air quality, odour or dust issues. We will ensure our contractor complies with the CoCP through the construction contract. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of the likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. The need for any work on neighbouring properties has not been identified as necessary. While not a formal requirement, we are also preparing a Health impact assessment for submission with the application. The Health impact assessment will assess the full range of potential likely significant health and well-being effects of the project on identified vulnerable groups. If a Development Consent Order (DCO) is granted we would anticipate a series of requirements (similar to planning conditions) that would control the development. We expect that the requirements would secure the provision of the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental Statement that will be submitted with the application. In addition we would ensure compliance with the CoCP through the construction contract, which will require our contractor to adopt appropriate measures to avoid creating statutory nuisances where necessary. We can confirm that an assessment of the likely significant effects on air quality and odour is being completed as a part of our environmental impact assessment. Preliminary findings were published in our PEIR at phase two Outcome N N
More information is needed on mitigation 9110LO, 7035, 7569, 7628, 8898 including confirming that odour and air quality will be monitored during construction, whether work will be stopped if dust levels are too high and details on potential longer term health effects. Mitigation proposed to address air quality and odour issues is inadequate/insufficient, included: - odour - dust - shed and dampening equipment not sufficient and does not address the effect of unloading of lorries - any mitigation to replace our windows and provide air conditioning to each apartment would be extremely challenging, disruptive and costly. No guarantee that the mitigation technology proposed will be delivered or function as stated. 9400LO, 7142, 7156, 7244, 7518, 7833, 7856, 7892, 7894, 7949, 8075, 8313, 8621, 9089, 9303, 9460
10.5.64
16
10.5.65
7121, 7469, 7618, 7700, 9089, 9377
10.5.66
Undertake an environmental impact assessment.
12978
10-42
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response consultation (volume 13, section 4). We are consulting with local authority environmental health officers as a part of the process. The findings of the assessment together with any recommendations for mitigation will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. We expect to monitor dust emissions during the construction phase as set out in our draft CoCP, more details of which will be available in our DCO application.
Outcome
10.5.67
Installation of equipment to monitor effects.
7557
10.5.68
Make arrangements for resident monitoring and/or provide a hotline. The GLA and London Council's Best Practice Guidance (BPG) The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition should be implemented.
8210
The draft CoCP proposes implementing a Community liaison N plan which is to include a telephone helpline to handle enquires and concerns from the general public. We can confirm that the best practice guidance has been taken into account in developing our proposals for this site. Our draft CoCP sets out measures for managing our works as well as details of the various regulatory regimes and guidance with which we would need to comply, such as the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Mayor of London's Ambient Noise Strategy 2004 and The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition - Best Practice Guidance 2008, as well as various British Standards. N
10.5.69
GLA
Construction working hours and programme

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the construction working hours and programme 10.5.70 No supportive or neutral feedback was received in relation to the construction working hours and programme. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the construction working hours and programme Table 10.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the construction working hours and programme Ref 10.5.71 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on the construction programme. Respondent ID 11390 No. 1 Our response The overall project programme is set out in the Timing project information paper. Details relating to the site specific construction programme for this site are set out in the Carnwath Road Riverside site information paper, which indicates that construction works would last for a period of approximately six years. The programming of works at all sites will be configured to minimise the duration of works and associated disruption to the local area where possible. The length of the construction period as set out in the consultation documents was the period assessed in the PEIR (volume 13) that works would be underway and it is hoped that in many cases there will be periods during which there will be no activity or less intensive activity on some sites. Outcome N
10.5.72
The construction programme is too long/concerned about the duration of construction.
7285LO, 9169LO, 11059, 11082, 11230, 11291, 11411, 11821, 11878, 12030, 12175, 12205, 12255, 12293, 12365, 12638, 12657, 12666, 12733, 12734, 12798, 12963, 12965, 12970, 12978, 12996, 12998, 13061, 13062, 13214, 13222, 13223, 7364, 7390, 7431, 7466, 7470, 7545, 7693, 7824, 7847, 7865,
53
10-43
Ref
Respondent ID 7877, 7899, 7984, 8192, 8313, 8512, 8906, 8923, 8926, 8963, LR9118 9169LO, 7344 9169LO, 8413, 8684 9169LO, 7344, 7416, 7693, 7824, 8684, 8870, LR9118 7285LO, 9169LO, 13397LO, 13224, 7015, 7250, 7344, 7416, 7470, 7693, 7824, 7899, 8209, 8684, 8870, 8923, LR9118
No.
Our response
Outcome
10.5.73 10.5.74 10.5.75 10.5.76
Proposed working hours are too long. Extended working hours are unnecessary/unreasonable. Concerned about weekend working hours/construction seven days a week. Concerned about overnight/24-hour working hours and noise and light in particular.
2 3 8 17
As detailed in our site information paper, we plan to carry out site set up, shaft construction, construction of other structures and site completion within standard working hours, which are 8am-6pm weekdays, and 8am-1pm Saturdays. The shaft construction may require occasional extended standard working hours for reasons such as undertaking large concrete pours, delivering abnormal, large and heavy loads at times when there is reduced traffic. Weekend working hours additional to the standard working hours would be agreed with LBHF and we would notify the local residents beforehand. This site has been selected as a main tunnel drive site, which means that we will need to undertake continuous tunnelling in order to excavate and build the tunnel. Tunnelling needs to be carried out continuously to minimise settlement. It would also take considerably longer if we did not tunnel continuously. During continuous working hours, we will construct an acoustic building over the top of the shaft that will reduce the impact of noise and dust on the area. The movement of HGVs to and from the site would be limited in order to minimise likely significant environmental effects. For example, in residential areas, HGV movements may be limited to daytime to minimise noise at night.
N N N N
10.5.77
Concern that construction will take longer than anticipated.
12222, 12326, 13009, 7127, 7431, 7507, 7573, 7824, 8923
The programming of works at all sites will be configured to N minimise the duration of works and associated disruption to the local area where possible. The length of the construction period as set out in the consultation documents was the period assessed in the PEIR (volume 13) that works would be underway and it is hoped that in many cases there will be periods during which there will be no activity or less intensive activity on some sites. We are required by the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) to address the discharge of untreated sewage into the Thames Tideway which is a strong incentive to finish the project on time. Details of the working hours are set out in the Managing construction project information paper and the Carnwath Road Riverside site information paper. Carnwath Road Riverside was not proposed as a shortlisted site during phase one consultation,. Our site information paper sets out the various stages of the project and the working hours for each stage. This explains on pages 10 and 11 that we will work standard hours with occasional extended standard hours during site set-up and N N
10.5.78 10.5.79
More information is needed on working hours. The construction programme has increased since phase one consultation. Hours associated with site maintenance and servicing. It is inconceivable that there will be no planned/unplanned (managed) visits to the site after normal working hours. Some
8681 7127
1 1
10.5.80
7127, 7705
10-44
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns literature states there will be continuous (24hour) working during certain periods of the construction yet, at a recent meeting, the leader of LBHF was assured this will not be the case.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response shaft-sinking. The definition of these hours, and the activities that take place during them are explained further in our draft CoCP. The CoCP defines the maintenance period for standard weekend hours as 1pm to 5pm on Saturday and 10am to 4pm on Sunday. The activities allowed in this period are limited, with no significant noise and vibration allowed. Maintenance activities will be limited and include general mechanical maintenance to construction machinery such as excavators plant such as compressors, grouting equipment, and dewatering equipment such as pumps. Where possible, maintenance works on Sundays would be avoided. We will have to undertake continuous 24-hour working during the tunnelling and secondary lining phase of the work, but we will limit noise as much as possible at night and will not be moving HGVs in or out of the site. Generally there is not a seasonal impact on the timescale of works but it is likely that an extent of dredging will be required to enable the use of the River Thames during construction. This may be restricted seasonally to avoid impacts on aquatic ecology.
Outcome
10.5.81
Query whether there are any seasonal impacts on the timescale of works.
9461
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures proposed to address the effects of the construction working hours and programme 10.5.82 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the construction working hours and programme. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to address the effects of the construction working hours and programme Table 10.5.11 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of the construction working hours and programme Ref 10.5.83 Objections, issues and concerns Issues arising from extended working hours which include the arrival/departure times of construction workers. Respondent ID 9337 No. 1 Our response Outcome
The daily site mobilisation period would last no longer than N one hour either side of standard working hours. The activities undertaken during this time are necessary to ensure that construction activities are able to commence and be completed in a timely manner, and would be agreed in line with the proposed approach set out in our draft CoCP.
Construction site design and layout

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction site design and layout 10.5.84 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to construction site design and layout. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout Table 10.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout Ref 10.5.85 10.5.86 Objections, issues and concerns Site layout appears to be unsuitable due to likely effects on adjacent residents. Location of the site access is too close to Respondent ID 9169LO 9169LO No. 1 1 Our response The orientation of the site layout has been developed to minimise the impact on adjoining residents with site access not directly opposite residential units and proposals to enclose the working areas with a temporary structure during Outcome N N
10-45
Ref 10.5.87
Objections, issues and concerns residential areas The extent of the construction site must accommodate existing and consented cargo handling capacity, or relocated.
Respondent ID PLA
No. 1
Our response periods of continuous tunnelling. The wharfs contained within the construction site are not currently in use, it is proposed that they are brought into use to enable barge transport during construction. The future use of the existing safeguarded wharf would not be compromised by our works. We are preparing a Navigational risk assessment as part of our DCO application, the approach to which is being discussed with the PLA. Preliminary discussions with the PLA have also informed the design of the site.
Outcome N
10.5.88
Existence and/or size of structure(s) within the foreshore of the River Thames and effect on Hurlingham Yacht Club (HYC) at Broomhouse Lane arising from changing sedimentation patterns. Query whether project could dredge around the HYC jetty as a good will gesture. Other objections to construction site layout and design: - potential effect on the stability of Broomhouse Pier, which will require monitoring during the works
- note all previous campsheds have been
9253
10.5.89
9253, LR9118
removed. Suggestions for construction site design and layout 10.5.90 No suggestions were received in relation to construction site design and layout.
Historic environment
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment 10.5.91 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to the historic environment during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment Table 10.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during construction Ref 10.5.92 10.5.93 10.5.94 Objections, issues and concerns General effect of construction activities on local heritage. Effect of construction activities on Sands End Conservation Area. Effect of construction activities on listed building(s) or structure(s), including significant and listed buildings such the Lifschultz Davidson Piper Building. 8807LO, 13363, 8537 13363, 9377 Respondent ID No. 9461 1 3 2 Our response We recognise that the site is located within the Sands End Conservation Area as acknowledged in our Carnwath Road Riverside site information paper and the PEIR (volume 13, section 7). The site is also in close proximity to the locally listed murals by John Piper, which are situated on the faade of the Piper Building (the Piper Building itself is not listed). However, as the site currently comprises an industrial estate and two vacant wharves, we believe that at present the site makes little contribution to the Sands End Conservation Area. In developing our proposals for this site, we will continue to take into account the contribution that we can make to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. We are undertaking a heritage assessment as part of our environmental impact Outcome N N N
10-46
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response assessment that will identify any likely significant effects of our proposed construction activities. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Our CoCP, which was provided at phase two consultation, identifies that works to or in the vicinity of listed buildings will be undertaken in accordance with all required consents and licences and that protection measures will be put in place at the start of the works. We would also notify English Heritage and the local planning authority prior to undertaking works.
Outcome
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment 10.5.95 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to measures to address historic environment issues during construction. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment Table 10.5.14 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address the effects on the historic environment issues during construction Ref 10.5.96 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on mitigation. Respondent ID EH No. 1 Our response Outcome
We have undertaken a preliminary assessment of the likely N significant effects of the construction. If, as part of the process of preparing our Environmental statement for submission with our DCO application, the need for additional mitigation is identified we will propose further measures. Our draft CoCP, which was provided at phase two consultation, sets out a range of measures to safeguard the historic environment during construction including confirmation that works close to listed buildings will be undertaken in accordance with all required consents and licences and that protection measures, as required, will be put in place at the start of the works. We would also notify English Heritage and the local planning authority prior to undertaking works.
Land quality and contamination

Supportive and neutral comments in relation to land quality and contamination 10.5.97 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to land quality and contamination during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination Table 10.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination during construction Ref 10.5.98 Objections, issues and concerns Existing contamination within the site boundary, including potential contamination below the ground at Hurlingham Wharf. Brownfield sites carry a risk of contamination from previous uses; factory Respondent ID 9392LO, 13188, 7142, 8855 No. 4 Our response The PEIR (volume 13, section 8), which was prepared for phase two consultation, included a section on land quality. The land quality assessment identifies that the site has the potential to be contaminated, with a number of potentially polluting industries having operated on the site including a Outcome N
10.5.99
8727
10-47
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns on this site was decommissioned
Respondent ID 7217 13363 7031, 7217 9392LO, 7031, 8189, 8727
No. 1 1 2 4
10.5.100 There is an existing landfill within the site boundary. 10.5.101 There are existing hazardous substances within the site boundary. 10.5.102 Potential for contamination in site boundary including potential issues of toxic waste. 10.5.103 Potential for hazardous substances within the boundary including concerns that there are buried noxious chemicals and other toxic materials which will have to be excavated. 10.5.104 Effect on human health arising from site contamination released during construction and/or pollution incidents associated with site construction activities.
7012, 7031
10.5.105 Effect on sensitive receptors including 7005, 7012, 8537 Thomas School on Hugon Road arising from contamination released during construction or pollution incidents.
Our response cement works, a petroleum depot and an asphalt works. We also identified a timber yard, a builders merchant and potential contamination of the shallow groundwater offsite. In order to understand the potential of any contaminants to affect human health during construction, we developed a source-pathway-receptor conceptual model for the site. The source-pathway-receptor model allows us to identify how, if at all, potential contamination could reach a receptor (in this case local residents or on-site workers). The pathways by which the potential below ground contamination could be mobilised during construction are: a. human uptake through: ingestion of exposed contaminated soils during construction or inhalation of soil/dust, volatilised compounds or ground gas via migration through permeable strata and conduits b. dermal contact with exposed soils during construction. Although the historic use of the site suggests that it is likely to be contaminated, this will be confirmed through detailed site investigation before construction. Even without the details of the exact contamination on the site we have set out how we would address any contamination issues through working practices to avoid the pathways described above from operating. These measures are set out in the draft CoCP which was included as part of the phase two consultation materials. The draft CoCP sets out a series of objectives and measures to be applied throughout the construction period in order to: a) set out the standards and procedures for managing and mitigating the impact of site activities during the construction of the Thames Tunnel project b) maintain satisfactory levels of environmental protection c) limit disturbance from construction activities and to assure all stakeholders that all construction impacts will be managed appropriately. The land quality (9), the air quality (7), water resources (8) and waste management and resource use (10) sections of the draft CoCP outline the legislation, policy and measures to which the contractor undertaking the work would be required to work. Application of the approaches and measures outlined in the draft CoCP will ensure that contamination is not a risk to human health during construction, either to those undertaking the work or to local residents. Section 4 of the draft CoCP outlines general site operations, including the avoidance and response to pollution incidents.
Outcome N N N N
10-48
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Our Environmental statement, which will be submitted as a part of our DCO application, will assess the measures set out in our CoCP. Our contractor will be required to comply with those measures. Through the application of the measures in the CoCP the assessment in the PEIR (volume 13, section 8) determined that land quality effects on construction workers and off-site receptors would not be significant. We have made allowance in our project cost estimate for dealing with any contamination that is found in the ground. Ground remediation would be carried out in a safe controlled way, and would only be required for the volume of material required to be excavated for the shaft and other shallow structures, and not the whole site.
Outcome
10.5.106 Concerns about the cost of land remediation as disturbance of the current concrete cap could increase project costs significantly.
9392LO, 13363
Supportive and neutral comments in relation to measures proposed to address the effects of land quality and contamination 10.5.107 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to measures to address the effect of land quality and contamination issues during construction. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to address the effects of land quality and contamination 10.5.108 No objections, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to measures to address the effect of land quality and contamination issues during construction.
Lighting
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to lighting 10.5.109 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to lighting issues during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to lighting Table 10.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to lighting during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 7898 No. 1 Our response Our PEIR (volume 13, sections 6, 10 and 11) considers the likely significant effects of construction lighting on ecology, socio-economics and townscape and sets out our preliminary findings. As part of the Environmental statement that we would submit with our DCO application, we would include a full assessment of the likely significant effects of construction lighting on ecology, townscape and amenity. Any construction lighting would be designed to minimise any effects on ecology or amenity. Additionally, a Lighting management plan would be prepared by our contractor to set out appropriate lighting solutions for the site. As set out in our draft CoCP, construction lighting would be provided to ensure the safety and security of the site and would be designed to comply with the provisions of BS5489, the CoCP for the Design of Road Lighting, where applicable. For example, the lighting would be located and directed so as to minimise intrusion into occupied residential properties and on sensitive areas. Further details on lighting can also Outcome C
10.5.110 Potential lighting effects will be greater than those set out in the consultation material.
10.5.111 The effect of construction lighting on quality of life (disturbance from lighting), and consequences on the physical and mental health of residents. 10.5.112 Concerned about light pollution, particularly given proposed 24-hour seven day working
LBHF, 13224, 7121, 7977, 8103, 8117, LR9418
13397LO, 8807LO, 9169LO, 13363, 7121, 7343, 7386, 7437, 7476, 7494, 7502,
28
10-49
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns at this site. It will affect residential areas, schools and nurseries. Concerned about intrusive site lighting through the night/especially at night.
Respondent ID 7520, 7522, 7524, 7525, 7558, 7577, 7668, 7894, 7898, 7920, 7971, 8007, 8091, 8103, 8111, 8209, 8287
No.
Our response Outcome be found in our Managing construction project information paper. Additionally, a Lighting management plan will be prepared by our contractor. The plan would set out appropriate lighting solutions for the site. Part B of our CoCP, which will be available as part of our DCO application submission, will set out further site specific details on lighting during construction. We are also preparing a Health impact assessment that will examine the likely significant effects of the proposed development on human mental and physical health and wellbeing and possible effects within the population. The findings of this study will inform the design for this site as well as mitigation measures to address any significant effects.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures proposed to address the effects of lighting 10.5.113 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to measures to address lighting effects during construction. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to the effects of lighting Table 10.5.17 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions for addressing the effects of lighting during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 9337 No. 1 Our response As set out in our draft CoCP, construction lighting would be provided to ensure the safety and security of the site and would be designed to comply with the provisions of BS5489, the CoCP for the Design of Road Lighting, where applicable. For example, the lighting would be located and directed so as to minimise intrusion into occupied residential properties and on sensitive areas. In addition during the main tunnelling work and shaft lining operation the shaft will be covered by a warehouse type building. One function of the structure would be to control nuisance from lighting. Further details on lighting can also be found in our Managing construction project information paper. Additionally a Lighting management plan will be prepared by our contractor. The plan would set out appropriate lighting solutions for the site. Part B of our CoCP, which will be available as part of our DCO application submission, will set out further site specific details on lighting during construction. We are also preparing a Health impact assessment that will examine the likely significant effects of the proposed development on human mental and physical health and wellbeing and possible effects within the population. The findings of this study will inform the design for this site as well as mitigation measures to address any significant effects. Outcome N
10.5.114 More information is needed on lighting mitigation; detailed proposals need to be submitted to minimise light pollution. 10.5.115 Mitigation proposed to address lighting issues is inadequate/insufficient.
7898
10-50
Natural environment (aquatic)

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) 10.5.116 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 10.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns relating to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID EA No. 1 Our response As part of our PEIR (volume 13, section 5), we assessed the likely significant construction effects of the proposed development on aquatic ecology including the foreshore habitat. The PEIR considers the likely significant effects on the foreshore and River Thames and recognises a number of impacts including those associated with a new mooring and any necessary channel reshaping or dredging. Many of the effects would be controlled through measures set out in our CoCP. It is also noted that many effects would be temporary and the habitat would recover following removal of the temporary structures. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment; we are preparing a full aquatic ecology assessment for submission within the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application. Outcome N
10.5.117 Effect of construction activities on foreshore habitat(s).
Supportive and neutral comments in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) 10.5.118 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to measures to address natural environment (aquatic) issues during construction. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) Table 10.5.19 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions for addressing natural environment (aquatic) issues during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID EA No. 1 Our response It is anticipated that the habitat would recover following removal of the temporary structures. As stated in the PEIR (volume 13, section 5) specific restoration measures which may be relevant will be reported in the Environmental statement that will accompany our DCO application. Outcome N
10.5.119 More information is needed on mitigation in relation to use of campsheds and how the foreshore would be reinstated once campsheds are removed.
Natural environment (terrestrial)

Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 10.5.20 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID 7839, 7904, 7985, 8518, 8520, 8593, 8710 8007 No. 7 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
10.5.120 Site will have less environmental/ecological impact. 10.5.121 Construction activities will have a small/ minimal effect on local wildlife.
10-51
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 10.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 7691 7127, 9461 No. 1 2 Our response Outcome
10.5.122 Damage to trees on Wandsworth Bridge Road. 10.5.124 Loss of trees lining Wandsworth Bridge Road. 10.5.125 Effect of construction activities on other vegetation.
Our phase two proposals for the Carnwath Road Riverside N site do not currently include any works that would affect the 10.5.123 trees on Wandsworth Bridge Road. However, the site N information paper for this site acknowledges that junction improvements may be required which may result in the loss of trees. Site clearance would result in the loss of semi-mature vegetation (trees and scrub) from the site. The proposed public realm would have a beneficial effect, offering a better quantity and quality replacement. N
13363, 7680
10.5.126 General effect of construction activities on local wildlife. 10.5.127 Effect of construction activities on birds. 10.5.128 General environmental/ecological impact, including environmental quality and impact from using lorries.
7680, 7900, 9089 13363 7050, 7179, 7252, 7336, 7375, 7381, 7394, 7433, 7435, 7564, 7666, 7794, 7932, 8036, 8042, 8104, 8122, 8336, 8413, 8537, 8734, 9089
3 1 22
Our preliminary assessment of the effects on wildlife N associated with the construction of the tunnel are set out in our PEIR (volume 13, section 6), which sets out the likely N significant effects on notable species including bats and N birds and their habitats. The project has been designed to minimise effects on wildlife and habitats where possible. Where effects have been identified, mitigation has been built into the design. The likely significant effects will be assessed and reported in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of the DCO application. The CoCP that will be submitted with the application will ensure that works are undertaken in compliance with applicable legislation, and with relevant nature conservation policies and guidance, including the Mayor of Londons Biodiversity strategy and local biodiversity action plans. Where species are protected by specific legislation, we would follow approved guidance, propose appropriate mitigation and obtain any necessary licences or consents. We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. As part of this, we carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. This included our PEIR (volume 13, section 6) which sets out our initial assessment of likely significant effects on terrestrial ecology from construction site activities comprising clearance activities commencing in the first year of construction, piling, movements of construction workers and machinery that would cause noise, vibration and lighting, works within the foreshore and continuous 24-hour working. The proposals set out in our draft CoCP are included in the assessment. An assessment of the likely significant effects on the natural environment is being completed as a part of our N
10.5.129 More information is needed on the effect of construction activities on the natural environment.
LR9491
10-52
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient. Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects on wildlife associated with the construction of the tunnel is set out in our PEIR (volume 13, section 6) and identified the existing buildings on the site in terms of potential habitats. The likely significant effects of the development on habitats will be assessed and reported in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of the DCO application. Following construction, the site would offer a new green public realm adjacent to the river.
Outcome
10.5.130 Other natural environment issues, included: - Thames Water should consider the importance of any existing buildings for protected species 10.5.131 - disrupts green environment plans as part of riverside regeneration.
7794, 7865, LR9447
Supportive and neutral comments in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) 10.5.132 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to measures to address natural environment (terrestrial) issues during construction. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 10.5.22 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 7680 7507 No. 1 1 Our response Refer to our response at paragraph 10.3.29 above. Details of proposed mitigation measures and initial ecology surveys for the site were set out in the PEIR (volume 13, section 6) and our CoCP as part of our phase two consultation. Our draft CoCP sets out a range of measures that would be implemented to control and limit disturbance, and relevant measures will be assessed in our Environmental statement. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. All construction activities will be contained within the limit of land to be acquired or used. Outcome N N
10.5.133 Use an alternative site which is less harmful to wildlife and flora. 10.5.134 Mitigation proposed does not address the issues as the green roof on the proposed structure is insufficient.
10.5.135 Locate construction activities within the site to avoid sensitive and designated areas. 10.5.136 Other natural environment mitigation, included: - maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity through an effective mitigation package
- should take steps to secure the long-term
LR9491 LR9447, LR9491
1 2
protection of any protected species which may be impacted.
Working with stakeholders, we will continue to develop N measures which will promote local biodiversity. This may include new tree planting and landscaping and a fan building with a biodiverse roof. Our environmental impact assessment will consider the likely significant effect of the proposed construction on any N notable species at the site and set out recommendations for managing any effects.
10-53
Noise and vibration

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to noise and vibration Table 10.5.23 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to noise and vibration during construction Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID 11014, 11112, 11565, 11675, 11757, 11888, 11989, 12066, 12385, 12720, 12726, 12742, 12777, 12783, 12924, 13012, 13015, 7977, 7997, 8011, 8030, 8118, 8121, 8139 11013, 11014, 11105, 11112, 11116, 11642, 11753, 11768, 11888, 11940, 11989, 12043, 12092, 12111, 12202, 12222, 12529, 12720, 12742, 12777, 12833, 12879, 13012, 13120, 13148, 13206, 13210, 13217, 7780, 7997, 8118 No. 24 Our response Your comments are noted.
10.5.137 Not concerned by the effect of noise and vibration.
10.5.138 Noise and vibration have been properly addressed by the phase two consultation.
31
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration Table 10.5.24 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 13397LO, 7335, 7381, 7524, 7565, 7752, 7753, 7759, 7766, 7898, 7958, 8030, 8121, 8211, 8543, 8656, 8884 9131LO, 7035, 7971 No. 17 Our response Our PEIR (volume 13, section 9) sets out our initial qualitative assessment of noise and vibration from construction site activities, noise from construction traffic on roads outside the site, and noise and vibration from operation of the site., The proposals set out in our draft CoCP are included in the assessment. The PEIR assessment was undertaken using the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)'s London noise maps. Our Environmental statement, which will be submitted with our DCO application, will include a full assessment of noise and vibration that will be completed in line with the methodology that is compliant with BS5228, BS6472 and BS7385 and has been agreed with LBHF. The CoCP also states that our contractor would be required to apply for Section 61 consents under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. These would set out specific working methods and the measures to minimise noise and vibration as well as any appropriate monitoring measures to be agreed with local authority environmental health officers. As set out in our Carnwath Road Riverside site information paper, the contractor would be required to implement noise and vibration control measures at the site, in line with the requirements of the CoCP. The contractor would also be required to gain prior approval to the construction work from LBHF through a Section 61 application under the Control of Outcome N
10.5.139 Potential effects of noise will be greater than those set out in the consultation material. 10.5.140 It is not clear what the scale of noise and vibration effects will be; the assessment to date is very vague.
10.5.141 Noise and vibration from above ground construction activity. 10.5.142 Noise and vibration from underground tunnelling. 10.5.143 Noise and vibration from construction traffic;
9417LO, 9481LO, 13127, 7269, 7476, 7502, 7522, 7577, 8103, 8413 13127, 7461, 7522, 7851, 7949, 8451, 8581 9169LO, 11800, 7129, 7236, 7343, 7391,
10 7 28
N N N
10-54
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns use the river to reduce noise.
Respondent ID 7469, 7478, 7499, 7571, 7680, 7687, 7752, 7753, 7759, 7764, 7765, 7766, 7781, 7820, 7894, 7958, 7971, 8037, 8211, 8457, 8656, 8725, See annex C of this report See annex C of this report
No.
10.5.144 General noise effects arising from construction activities. 10.5.145 General vibration effects:, including: - concern about movements in the subsoil, especially as the houses are built on sand - effect on local businesses (eg recording studio which is sensitive to low frequency vibration). 10.5.146 Proximity to residential area/densely populated area and concerns that sound would be amplified by the shape of the buildings; need to ensure there is no noise pollution affecting the residents and school children within 250m of the site.
2,420 2,355
7331LO, 8046LO, 7012, 7035, 7102, 7107, 7110, 7118, 7186, 7193, 7196, 7232, 7241, 7244, 7276, 7365, 7377, 7381, 7462, 7469, 7471, 7478, 7498, 7518, 7524, 7535, 7557, 7674, 7680, 7687, 7692, 7702, 7731, 7752, 7753, 7759, 7764, 7765, 7766, 7780, 7786, 7793, 7824, 7847, 7851, 7856, 7865, 7869, 7892, 7898, 7899, 7900, 7932, 7949, 7958, 7968, 7971, 8030, 8287, 8537, 8755, 8870 7285LO, 9110LO, 7031, 7102, 7110, 7118, 7121, 7137, 7186, 7241, 7244, 7276, 7365, 7387, 7388, 7396, 7437, 7482, 7498, 7507, 7518, 7524, 7526, 7557, 7668, 7680, 7686, 7687, 7692, 7738, 7752, 7753, 7759, 7764, 7765, 7766, 7793, 7833, 7865, 7869, 7870, 7890, 7898, 7958, 7968, 8007, 8030, 8036, 8037, 8121, 8302, 8755, 8870, 8884, 8898, 9061, 9089 LC, 9400LO, 7217, 7221, 7387, 7461, 7469, 7472, 7486, 7507, 7526, 7532, 7535, 7680, 7702, 7752, 7920, 7932, 8121, 8124, 8139, 9461 9303
62
10.5.147 Proximity to other sensitive receptors including local schools and nurseries. Need to ensure there is no noise pollution affecting the residents and school children within 250m of the site.
57
10.5.148 Effect on quality of life/residential amenity.
22
10.5.149 Effect of noise and vibration on sensitive uses/premises.
Our response Pollution Act which sets out specific working methods and the measures to minimise noise and vibration. This will ensure that the noise levels are reasonable and best practical means are applied. The measures would be agreed with local authority environmental health officers. Additionally, we will implement best practice measures to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment, use of enclosures to provide acoustic screens At this site the shaft would also be enclosed by an acoustic shed for the period of 24-hour tunnelling. Full details of the measures that will be adopted for the construction will be set out in the CoCP submitted with our DCO application. At this site we will also use barges to transport materials, which will reduce noise associated with transportation of materials by road. Our PEIR (volume 13, section 9) sets out our preliminary qualitative assessment of noise and vibration from construction site activities including barge movements, noise from construction traffic on roads outside the site. and noise and vibration from operation of the site. The proposals set out in our draft CoCP are included in the assessment. The PEIR assessment was undertaken using used Defra's London noise maps. It concluded that noise from barges would be limited and would mainly consist of engine noise as the barge approaches or departs the site which would have a limited effect as it is assumed that engines would be switched off once moored. For road traffic, given the volumes of existing traffic on roads in the area the effect is likely to be low. The noise impact associated with HGV traffic is also set out in the PEIR (volume 13, section 9). Our Environmental statement, which will be submitted with our DCO application, will include an assessment of noise and vibration that will be completed in line with the methodology that is compliant with BS5228, BS6472 and BS7385and has been agreed with LBHF. We note that residential premises are located to the north, east and west of the proposed site. To the west there are three-storey residential premises (85 and 89 to 101 Carnwath Road). Block 89-101 does not have windows overlooking the site above the first floor. To the north over Carnwath Road is the Piper Building a six-storey mixed residential and commercial building with residential flats, from the third floor upwards. Also to the north is Philpot Square, which consists of five-storey residential flats and two-storey residential houses on Dymock Street. To the east at 5 Carnwath Road is a four-storey residential property. A number of new developments are likely to be partially
Outcome
N N
10-55
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome completed by the first year of construction, including the redevelopment of the Baltic Saw Mills site and Fulham Wharf. These developments are further away than receptors we have considered, and they have not therefore been included in the assessment. The residential properties and other sensitive receptors selected for the noise and vibration assessment are identified in our PEIR (volume 13, section 9) at Table 9.4.1. One non-residential noise sensitive receptor has been assessed, which is commercial space at 50 Carnwath Road, which is below part of the Piper Building. Refer to our response at paragraph 10.5.256 in respect of vibration effects. We are preparing a Health impact assessment to assess any likely significant effects on health which may arise from noise associated with the proposed development and this will be submitted as part of our DCO application. Our methodology for the assessment of likely significant noise and vibration effects, which has been agreed with LBHF, takes into consideration any relevant developments in the local area so we can ensure that the cumulative effects of our proposals can be properly assessed. We also note that assessment of cumulative effects is a requirement of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009. Our PEIR (volume 13, section 9) sets out the details of any relevant strategic developments that have been taken into consideration in our preliminary assessment. At this stage we concluded that although a number of new developments are likely to be partially completed by the first year of construction, including the redevelopment of the Baltic Saw Mills site and Fulham Wharf, these developments are further away than receptors we have considered, and therefore they have not been included in the assessment. We will continue to monitor proposed development in the local area and any relevant cumulative effects would be reported in our Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of our DCO application. Carnwath Road Riverside is proposed as a main drive site where there will be continuous tunnelling, although a proportion of our works would be undertaken in standard working hours as detailed in our site information paper. A preliminary assessment has been carried out that identifies that there are likely to be significant adverse noise and vibration effects during the construction phase at this site. Our contractor will be required to implement noise and vibration control measures at the site, in line with the N
10.5.150 Effect on (children's) health arising from noise associated with the proposals.
7285LO, 7012, 7035, 7107, 7121, 7186, 7217, 7244, 7345, 7377, 7387, 7461, 7469, 7532, 7668, 7680, 7752, 7759, 7764, 7765, 7766, 7833, 7856, 7865, 7932, 7958, 8210, 8302, 9460, 9474 7241
30
10.5.151 Cumulative noise and vibration effects with other developments.
10.5.152 Effect of working hours on noise and vibration impacts. 10.5.153 Effect of continuous (24-hour) working on noise and vibration impacts.
9169LO, 13363, 7507 7285LO, 7331LO, 9169LO, 13224, 13363, 7015, 7186, 7193, 7343, 7377, 7388, 7437, 7471, 7476, 7486, 7498, 7502, 7520, 7526, 7532, 7558, 7577, 7631, 7691, 7693, 7698, 7731, 7751, 7786, 7824, 7898, 7899, 8111, 8313, 8656,
3 38
C C
10-56
Ref
Respondent ID 8742, 8870, LR9118
No.
Our response requirements of our CoCP. Our contractor will be required to gain prior approval to the construction work from LBHF through a Section 61 application under the Control of Pollution Act that sets out specific working methods and the measures to minimise noise and vibration as well as any appropriate monitoring measures. The measures would be agreed with local authority environmental health officers. Additionally, we will implement measures to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, the siting of equipment, and the use of enclosures to provide acoustic screens. At this site the shaft and gantry crane would also be enclosed. Details of the measures that will be adopted for the construction will be set out in the CoCP to be submitted with our DCO application.
Outcome
10.5.154 Duration of construction and effects of associated noise and vibration.
LBHF, 7331LO, 7377, 7388, 7390, 7437, 7463, 7469, 7476, 7478, 7498, 7502, 7520, 7535, 7558, 7565, 7577, 7693, 7731, 7824, 7833, 7847, 7898, 7900, 7931, 7932, 8091, 8103, 8111, 8313, 8512, 8656, 8684, 8755, 8926, LR9118
36
At this site we anticipate that construction will last for six N years, as detailed in our site information paper. During the construction period there will be varying levels of noise and vibration associated with the different activities on site. As detailed in the PEIR (volume 13, section 9) at this site most stages of work have been assessed as having significant effects at eight receptors around the site. This assessment is based on a worst case assessment where the two noisiest activities in any stage happen concurrently and over the entire duration of the stage. This is a conservative approach and a full assessment of the likely significant effects will be set out in the Environmental Statement that will be submitted with our DCO application and this will incorporate appropriate mitigation measures where significant effects are identified. We anticipate monitoring noise and vibration where there are sensitive receptors. The requirements for monitoring will be agreed with local authority environmental health officers as part of our section 61 applications. We do not expect the monitoring equipment to have any effect on occupiers or users of adjacent or nearby sites. N
10.5.155 Effect of monitoring equipment.
LR13424, LR13425, LR13426, LR13427, LR13428, LR13429, LR13430, LR13431, LR13432, LR13433, LR13434, LR13435, LR13436, LR13437, LR13438, LR13439, LR13440, LR13441 13397LO, 9169LO, 7035, 7364, 7371, 7499, 7500, 7507, 7628, 8724, 8898
18
10.5.156 More information is needed on noise and vibration effects in respect of: - expected decibel levels - the specific assessments that have been carried out for vibration and noise pollution - analysis of noise is not sufficient - potential long-term health effects - more information on 'temporary structure' - no attempt to measure/consult on
11
Our PEIR (volume 13, section 9) sets out our initial N qualitative assessment of noise and vibration from construction site activities, noise from construction traffic on roads outside the site and noise and vibration from operation of the site The assessment embeds the proposals in our draft CoCP. Tables 9.5.1 to 9.5.10 of the PEIR (volume 13, section 9) set out details of the likely noise (in decibels) that will be generated by the works together with the assumed ambient baseline noise levels which are based on Defras noise maps for London. The preliminary assessment was completed in line with a methodology that is compliant with
10-57
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns acceptable levels of impact for local residents.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response BS7445 and has been agreed with LBHF. It is a robust approach to assessing likely significant noise effects associated with development. Our Environmental statement, which will be submitted with our DCO application, will include a full assessment of noise and vibration that will be completed in line with the methodology that is compliant with BS5228, BS6472 and BS7385 and has been agreed with LBHF. If significant noise and/or vibration effects are identified at a site, we will set out appropriate mitigation measures to provide appropriate attenuation. At this site we propose a temporary structure to enclose the shaft and gantry crane area. The final design of the enclosure is yet to be determined. However, our preliminary noise assessment assumes that the noise insulation performance of the enclosure is based on typical cladding material for this type of structure with consideration for ventilation and other openings. Further details of the design of the enclosure will be set out in our DCO application and the details of that design would be assessed in our full Environmental statement. Our phase two consultation has provided the community with an opportunity to comment on our proposals including levels of impact. In particular, question 4 on the feedback form sought comments on whether we had identified the correct key construction issues and mitigation measures. We note that our approach to assessing the impacts of the project has been prepared in line with best practice and British Standards where appropriate (such as the noise and vibration assessment) . Our works would be completed in line with the measures set out in our CoCP. We are discussing power requirements with utility providers and do not believe that power cuts or shortages area likely to be an issue. In the event that any loss was incurred as a consequence of our works, we have published A guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme which sets out details of compensation that would be available for damage or loss caused by our works. We have completed a preliminary assessment of likely significant effects of noise on the river and our findings are that noise from barges would be limited and would mainly consist of engine noise as the barge approaches or departs the site which would have a limited effect as it is assumed that engines would be switched off once moored, as set out in the PEIR (volume 13, section 9). Further details of likely significant noise effects on the river will be set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our
Outcome
10.5.157 Other noise and vibration concerns and issues: - works may lead to power cuts and shortages which will affect schools and businesses
- noise on the river.
7482, 7869, 8681
10-58
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response DCO application.
Outcome
Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration Table 10.5.25 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the measures proposed the effects of noise and vibration during construction Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID GLA, 7424 No. 2 Our response Your comments are noted.
10.5.158 Mitigation proposed to address the issues is satisfactory subject to: - the noise measures outlined in the CoCP and BS5228 being applied without departing from them - the noise enclosure meeting requirements - provision of temporary warehouse type buildings over main tunnel drive shafts.
Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration Table 10.5.26 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 7252, 7968, 9460 No. 3 Our response Refer to our response at paragraph 10.3.29 above. Outcome N
10.5.159 Noise and vibration issues could be addressed by using an alternative site (Barn Elms). 10.5.160 Noise has not been properly addressed by the phase two consultation.
2,316
We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and N comprehensive consultation exercise. We carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. This included our PEIR (volume 13, section 9) which sets out our initial assessment of noise and airborne and groundborne vibration from construction site activities, noise from construction traffic on roads outside the site and noise and vibration from operation of the site, together with the assumptions that reflect the proposals in our draft CoCP. The PEIR assessment was undertaken using Defra's London noise maps. Our Environmental statement, which will be submitted with our DCO application, will include a noise and vibration section that will be completed in line with the methodology that is compliant with BS5228, BS6472 and BS7385 and has been agreed with the local authority. Our DCO application will also include a CoCP which will set out measures that must be implemented by our contractor during the works to address the likely significant effects of noise and vibration. We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient. Our PEIR (volume 13, section 9) sets out our initial N
10.5.161 Mitigation proposed does not address noise
7472, 7524, 7557, 7564, 7618, 7856, 7870
10-59
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns and vibration issues: - need constant monitoring and some better solutions
- what if they are unsuccessful in stopping
Respondent ID
No.
vibration, noise, and dust?

- they are only control measures - this won't
address the problem completely

- proposing a 'temporary structure' over the
site to reduce noise and nuisance is not good enough. 10.5.162 More information is need on noise and vibration mitigation: - need to ensure that there is no noise pollution affecting residents and school children within 250m of the site - while noise and dust might be reduced, there is no way they can be eliminated - there should be presentations to the public which provide details of air, dust and noise control techniques - can you advise what sort of temporary structure you are suggesting - unaware of a temporary structure that reduces noise unless it is soundproofed - how will vibration levels be reduced? - detailed proposals need to be submitted bearing in mind the proximity of proposed and current residential areas. 10.5.163 Mitigation proposed to address noise and vibration issues is inadequate/insufficient: - for the school - proposed temporary structure will not shelter locals from noise, vibration and dust - does not address the effect of loading/unloading lorries - enclosure will only be installed once noisiest phase of work undertaken. 10.5.164 No guarantee that the mitigation proposed will be delivered/it may not work: - impact on congestion in an already heavily 7518, 7949 2 8082LO, 9400LO, 9481LO, 7168, 7244, 7345, 7364, 7365, 7557, 7639, 7669, 7870, 7900, 7931, 7949, 8007, 8037, 8209, 8210, 8313, 8457, 8503, 8542, 8855, 9089, 9303, 9461 27 GLA, 8807LO, 7371, 7752, 7894, 7949, 7958, 8047, 9337 9
Our response qualitative assessment of noise and vibration from construction site activities, noise from construction traffic on roads outside the site and noise and vibration from operation of the site The assessment embeds the proposals in our draft CoCP. The PEIR assessment was undertaken using Defra's London noise maps. Our Environmental statement, which will be submitted with our DCO application, will include a full assessment of noise and vibration that will be completed in line with the methodology that is compliant with BS5228, BS6472 and BS7385 and has been agreed with LBHF. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Our draft CoCP sets out a range of measures that would be adopted by our contractor in order to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment and use of enclosures to provide acoustic screens. Specific measures such as acoustic suppression systems, operation of equipment in the mode that minimises noise and shutting down equipment when not in use are also identified in our CoCP. Our contractor would be required to comply with the requirements of the CoCP. The CoCP also states that our contractor would be required to apply for section 61 consents (s.61) under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. These would set out specific working methods and the measures to minimise noise and vibration as well as any appropriate monitoring measures to be agreed with local authority environmental health officers. If a DCO is granted we would anticipate a series of requirements (similar to planning conditions) that would control the development. We expect that the requirements would secure the provision of the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental Statement that will be submitted with the application and would stipulate that the development must be carried out in accordance with the agreed CoCP. We note that we are currently considering the opportunity to increase use of the river to transport materials. An effect of increased use of the river would be a reduction in the number of lorries required during construction.
Outcome
N N N
N N
N N
N N C
10-60
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns congested area is underestimated

- local residents need protection ensured in
Respondent ID
No.
Our response
Outcome N
case the contractors measures are insufficient. 10.5.165 Adopt suitable measures in the CoCP. 10.5.166 Noise monitoring should be constant and some better solutions are needed. 10.5.167 Other noise and vibration mitigation comments and suggestions: - need to ensure that there is no noise pollution affecting residents and school children within 250m of the site - difficult, disruptive and expensive to undertake effective noise mitigation measures in the Piper Building would require major alteration/upgrades to all windows and French doors in block - what is the ability/facility for local residents to complain about dust levels/noise/traffic congestion? 13092 7557, 7628 7764, 7801, 8210, 9461 1 2 4 Our CoCP sets out a range of measures that would be adopted by our contractor to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment, an use of enclosures and temporary stockpiles to provide acoustic screens. Specific measures such as acoustic suppression systems, operation of equipment in the mode that minimises noise and shutting down equipment when not in use are also identified in our CoCP. As set out in our Carnwath Road Riverside site information paper, the contractor would be required to implement noise and vibration control measures at the site, in line with the requirements of the CoCP. The contractor would also be required to gain prior approval to the construction work from LBHF through a Section 61 application under the Control of Pollution Act which sets out specific working methods and the measures to minimise noise and vibration. This will ensure that the noise levels are reasonable and best practical means are applied. The measures would be agreed with local authority environmental health officers. Additionally, we will implement best practice measures to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment, use of enclosures to provide acoustic screens At this site the shaft would also be enclosed by an acoustic shed for the period of 24-hour tunnelling. Full details of the measures that will be adopted for the construction will be set out in the CoCP submitted with our DCO application. At this site we will also use barges to transport materials, which will reduce noise associated with transportation of materials by road. Our PEIR (volume 13, section 9) sets out our preliminary qualitative assessment of noise and vibration from construction site activities including barge movements, noise from construction traffic on roads outside the site. and noise and vibration from operation of the site. The proposals set out in our draft CoCP are included in the assessment. The PEIR assessment was undertaken using used Defra's London noise maps. It concluded that noise from barges would be limited and would mainly consist of engine noise as the barge approaches or departs the site which would have a limited effect as it is assumed that engines would be switched off once moored. For road traffic, given the N N N
10-61
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response volumes of existing traffic on roads in the area the effect is likely to be low. The noise impact associated with HGV traffic is also set out in the PEIR (volume 13, section 9). Our Environmental statement, which will be submitted with our DCO application, will include an assessment of noise and vibration that will be completed in line with the methodology that is compliant with BS5228, BS6472 and BS7385and has been agreed with LBHF. Section 3 of the CoCP sets out the proposed approach to communications and community liaison during our works. A community liaison plan would be developed that would include a complaints procedure and helpline. The helpline would use the established Thames Water telephone helpline service. Potentially affected occupiers would be notified of the helpline number and it would be widely advertised. A complaints register would also be maintained and a copy provided to LBHF
Outcome
Open space and recreation

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to open space and recreation Table 10.5.27 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to open space and recreation during construction Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID 11014, 11017, 11047, 11048, 11053, 11112, 11116, 11130, 11139, 11146, 11157, 11174, 11232, 11250, 11265, 11266, 11268, 11269, 11272, 11304, 11327, 11332, 11350, 11352, 11375, 11385, 11391, 11394, 11416, 11418, 11423, 11437, 11450, 11451, 11456, 11474, 11499, 11510, 11511, 11512, 11513, 11531, 11536, 11550, 11565, 11570, 11622, 11656, 11672, 11674, 11675, 11688, 11689, 11701, 11714, 11735, 11745, 11757, 11759, 11815, 11831, 11843, 11851, 11858, 11861, 11862, 11871, 11872, 11880, 11888, 11895, 11902, 11923, 11931, 11935, 11936, 11938, 11956, 11970, 11989, 12043, 12046, 12047, 12048, 12050, 12061, 12075, 12082, 12099, 12102, 12105, 12111, 12146, 12171, 12200, 12253, 12276, 12283, 12295, 12297, 12298, 12312, 12319, 12332, 12336, 12365, 12385, 12402, 12403, 12409, 12418, 12428, 12441, 12467, 12469, 12475, 12507, 12515, 12523, 12538, No. 182 Our response Your comments are noted.
10.5.168 Not concerned by disruption to HYC Pier.
10-62
Ref
Respondent ID 12569, 12595, 12634, 12676, 12718, 12720, 12726, 12742, 12747, 12759, 12764, 12771, 12777, 12779, 12780, 12783, 12805, 12812, 12818, 12871, 12877, 12878, 12885, 12886, 12896, 12924, 12926, 12927, 12932, 12943, 12945, 12964, 12970, 12999, 13012, 13015, 13029, 13041, 13063, 13071, 13072, 13077, 13120, 13153, 13154, 13173, 13182, 13190, 13216, 7494, 7533, 7631, 7663, 7780, 7997, 8008, 8043, 8118, 8621, 8743, LR13422, LR13430 7251, 7750, 7754, 8728
No.
Our response
10.5.169 Other supportive comments: - it will not interfere with the huge amount of recreational usage on the stretch between Putney Bridge and Hammersmith Bridge - fewer leisure users of the River Thames (than Barn Elms) - less conflict with recreational use of river.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation Table 10.5.28 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 7244 No. 1 Our response Our PEIR (volume 13, section 10) provides a preliminary assessment of the likely significant socio-economic effects of the project on public open space, building on the preliminary findings of a range of topics including noise and vibration, air quality (including dust emissions) and odour, and transport. The methodology for the assessment has been agreed with LBHF. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of the likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. It is noted that the Carnwath Road Riverside site does not currently comprise any open space or recreation facilities, therefore our proposed works in this location would not have an effect on these uses. We are preparing a as part of our DCO application, the approach to which is being discussed with the PLA. Preliminary discussions with the PLA have also informed the design of the site. Suitable infrastructure will be constructed to allow the use of barges at the site. We will continue to Outcome N
10.5.170 It is not clear what the scale of the effect on open space and recreation will be; the assessment to date is very vague. 10.5.171 Effect on access to and recreational enjoyment of the riverfront. 10.5.172 Effect on children/young people and teenagers arising from the loss of open space.
7400, 7757 9061
2 1
N N
10.5.173 Disruption to sports groups and other local clubs, including HYC ,Hurlingham Sailing Club and other local rowing clubs.
9392LO, 7127, 8117
10-63
Ref
Respondent ID 13363
No. 1
Our response discuss the effects of our proposals with other river users. Your comment is noted. However, the Carnwath Road Riverside site does not currently comprise any open space or recreation facilities; therefore our proposed works in this location would not have an effect on these uses. Our proposals for this site include the transportation of materials by barge. We are currently undertaking a navigational risk assessment to establish any likely significant effects on the river. We do not believe that our works would have a detrimental effect on the use or enjoyment nearby parks including South Park, which is located approximately 150m north of our construction site, with a number of buildings in between.
Outcome N
10.5.174 There is a shortage of public open space in the local area.
10.5.175 Effect on river navigation and recreational river users including damage to local recreational sailing clubs, the Hurlingham Club and rowing clubs.
1,522
10.5.176 Proximity of preferred site to South Park and 7693, 7847, 8022, 8097, 8302, 8547, 9461 Hurlingham Park, with associated effects on its setting and recreational value. 10.5.177 South Park is a very valuable recreational amenity for the local community, especially children. 10.5.178 Proximity to open space. There is a lovely park (South Park) which is heavily used by the public. 13363, 7847, 8547
7571, 7892
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures proposed to address effects on open space and recreation 10.5.179 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to measures to address effects on open space and recreation during construction. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to address effects on open space and recreation 10.5.180 No objections, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to measures to address effects on open space and recreation during construction.
Planning and development

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to planning and development Table 10.5.29 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to planning and development issues during construction Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID 7847 9131LO, 7285LO, 7997, 8118, 7371, LR13435, 7567, 7346, 13216, 13182, 13064, 13042, 13041, 13012, 12984, 12940, 12871, 12862, 12856, 12779, 12777, 12742, 12726, 12720, 12690, 12662, 12608, 12464, 12454, 12416, 12338, 12331, 12269, 12175, 12173, 12157, 12131, 12103, 11997, 11989, 11890, 11888, 11827, 11793, 11757, 11688, 11675, 11665, 11565, 11549, 11479, 11421, 11375, 11368, 11350, 11273, 11272, 11125, 11112, 11026, 11017, 11012, 11014 No. 1 63 Our response Your comments are noted and welcomed.
10.5.181 Support the use of a site awaiting redevelopment. 10.5.182 Not concerned by delay to regeneration of South Fulham Riverside.
10-64
Ref
Respondent ID 11013, 11014, 11026, 11105, 11112, 11116, 11139, 11272, 11308, 11315, 11350, 11363, 11364, 11375, 11414, 11475, 11550, 11642, 11655, 11674, 11691, 11735, 11753, 11757, 11767, 11768, 11805, 11828, 11872, 11874, 11877, 11888, 11938, 11940, 11970, 11989, 11997, 12002, 12043, 12092, 12102, 12103, 12138, 12212, 12222, 12226, 12243, 12257, 12269, 12297, 12298, 12330, 12351, 12354, 12378, 12464, 12516, 12529, 12560, 12568, 12626, 12685, 12686, 12690, 12709, 12720, 12729, 12742, 12777, 12783, 12819, 12833, 12836, 12854, 12857, 12879, 12898, 12922, 13012, 13063, 13064, 13120, 13135, 13148, 13183, 13190, 13204, 13206, 13210, 13217, 13221, 7346, 7403, 7477, 7512, 7567, 7780, 7997, 8118 8725, 9423
No. 99
Our response
10.5.183 Delay to regeneration of South Fulham Riverside has been properly addressed by the phase two consultation.
10.5.184 Other supportive / general comments included: - there will be some minor gains - planning permission for regeneration is very unlikely to be granted for the safeguarded wharf, it may continue to lie derelict for many years to come (or alternatively be occupied by industrial or semi-industrial businesses)..
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development Table 10.5.30 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development issues during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 7472, 7514 No. 2 Our response The site is allocated for housing and employment uses within the wider South Fulham Riverside Regeneration Area in LBHF's adopted Core Strategy. While the use of this site during construction of the tunnel will prevent it from redevelopment in the short term, much of the site can be redeveloped in line with its allocation upon completion of our works. We have designed the permanent layout and design of the site to minimise the amount of land that is needed permanently, allowing as much of the site as possible to be redeveloped. Our proposals for the permanent layout and design of the site will also bring long-term benefits to the local area, including the creation of a new public open space by means of tree planting and landscaping, possible road Outcome N
10.5.185 Potential effects on the Fulham Riverside Regeneration Area will be greater than those set out in the consultation material. 10.5.186 It is not clear what the scale of the effect will be; the assessment to date is very vague, particularly in relation to the adverse impact on regeneration. 10.5.187 Conflict with existing site allocation - South Fulham Riverside Regeneration Area. 10.5.188 Proposal is contrary to adopted planning policy: - South Fulham Riverside Regeneration
7499, 9337
13059 LBHF, 13363, 8537, LR9418
1 4
N N
10-65
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns Area - contravenes core policy on improving open space, increasing social and private housing and improved local transport.
Respondent ID
No.
10.5.189 The proposal is contrary to planning policy, specifically in relation to South Fulham Riverside Regeneration Area: - proposals will ruin the redevelopment area - it will have moved away from its industrial past to become mixed use - plans are already well advanced and consultation occurred prior to Thames Water's proposals - large number of HGVs will cause conflict with proposed junction improvements. 10.5.190 Conflict with emerging regeneration proposals/future developments, including: - South Fulham Riverside Development Area proposals and comprehensive regeneration plan; 2200 proposed new homes by 2032 - using the site will prevent the Prince of Wales' opportunity to showcase his vision of 'Community Capital' through the South Fulham Riverside Development Area proposals - more flats and houses are planned in the local area - proposals will ruin a redevelopment area - waterside development by Sainsburys and other parties; proposals will hold back progress for over a decade - wharf regeneration and accompanying leisure improvements - housing development projects have been axed - anticipated residential units, including affordable housing (in area of housing shortage);- negative effect on South Fulham Riverside Regeneration project - will prevent the river walkway project going ahead. 10.5.191 Proposals will impact on the South Fulham Riverside Regeneration Area, including:
LBHF, 13365LO, 8215, 8537, 9428, LR9418
Our response junction improvements and a planned extension to the Thames Path pedestrian walkway. In addition, we will be utilising an existing vacant safeguarded wharf for its designated use and leave the site in an improved condition for future operators.
Outcome
2,118
GLA, LBHF, 9400LO, 7020, 7117, 7148, 7193, 7424, 7482, 7514, 7751, 7869,
35
10-66
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns - the local area has been regenerating for years but proposals will re-industrialise a progressively more residential area - impact of relocating an entire industrial estate - the area has the potential to develop into a place that attracts great business - proposals will delay regeneration of area and constrain the end result - capital has already been spent on a newly sited library and community hub in a designated secondary school.
Respondent ID 7914, 8030, 8096, 8117, 8121, 8139, 8209, 8313, 8325, 8414, 8451, 8457, 8543, 8652, 8684, 8725, 8755, 8839, 8891, 9303, 9428, 9461, LR9418
No.
Our response
Outcome
10.5.192 Clarification is needed to explain how the proposals will not affect the wider regeneration of the area. 10.5.193 Effect on a safeguarded wharf.
2,081
GLA, 8847
Our proposals for the site will not compromise Hurlingham Wharf's safeguarded status with the location of our permanent works on Whiffin Wharf. The wharf offers the opportunity to use the river to transport materials from the site during construction, which is consistent with GLA policy. While the use of this site during construction of the tunnel will prevent it from being available for redevelopment in the short term, the permanent layout and design of the site minimises the amount of land that is needed permanently, allowing as much of the site as possible to be developed for its designated use. Currently there is no existing planning permission for the site and we note that the Secretary of State has issued an Article 25 Direction that prevents the determination of all planning applications that affect this site.
10.5.194 Compatibility with existing planning permission adjacent to/in the vicinity of the site. 10.5.195 Conflict with implementation of existing planning permission for the site.
LBHF, LR9418
8085, 9461, 9421PET
10.5.196 Cumulative effect of other developments which are due to commence at the same time, including: - Sainsbury's - Wandsworth Brewery - Crossrail 2 - Chelsea Power Station on Lots Road - Cremorne Wharf The area has already been blighted for years by construction of huge number of flats in the area (across the river along York Road) which are almost complete. 10.5.197 Proposals will lead to planning blight on a site that could have been much more suitably used to benefit the community.
12887, 7164, 7567, 8652, 9461
We will undertake and submit an environmental impact N assessment with our DCO application, which will consider the cumulative effects arising from strategic developments in the local area. This is a requirement of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009..
13024, 7121, 7384, 7424, 7499, 7535, 7639, 7728, 7848, 8543, 8725, 8839, 8926
13
Statutory procedures are in place to enable qualifying landowners to serve notice requiring compulsory purchase of land that is blighted. Any qualifying claims for statutory
10-67
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response blight can be made after the DCO application has been submitted. In addition to the statutory procedures, we published our exceptional hardship procedure at phase two consultation. This procedure goes beyond the legal requirements and enables property owners meeting certain criteria to apply to us to purchase their property voluntarily. Further information is available on our website.
Outcome
10.5.198 Other planning and development issues included: - the only reason Thames Water is proposing to locate the project at this site is because they are legally bound to do so by the London Plan which prevents them from using a greenfield site if a viable alternative viable exists; this must be ruled out - characterisation of the site as a brownfield site that is in need of regeneration is misleading; do not see how a higher resale land value is a factor.
8537, 8681, 8878, 9303
Site selection has involved a multidisciplinary approach and N has considered community (including socio-economic) and environmental factors alongside planning (including policies on sustainable development), engineering and property considerations. Whether a site is brownfield or greenfield is one of many considerations taken into account as part of the site selection process when determining whether or not a site is suitable. Please also refer to our response at paragraph 10.3.29 above. Cost was also one of the considerations that inform site N assessments, but it is not an overriding factor that outweighs all other engineering, planning, environmental, community, property and wider economic considerations. High acquisition costs alone would not outweigh positive considerations such as use of brownfield land, conformity with planning policy, and ability to construct/operate the proposed works on the site. Equally, a low value site would not result in a site becoming our preferred site, if there were significant planning, environmental or community concerns associated with its use. In determining our preferred site, we made a balanced judgement taking planning, environment, engineering, property and community considerations into account.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development issues 10.5.199 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to measures to address the effects on planning and development issues during construction. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development issues Table 10.5.31 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions for addressing planning and development issues during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. 1 Our response Please see our response to 10.5.186 above. Outcome N
10.5.200 Mitigation proposed to address planning and 7244 development issues is inadequate/ insufficient. 10.5.201 Other suggested planning and development mitigation included: - there is an opportunity to develop this area with improved access to the river for everyone. 8482, 8725,
We are currently considering revisions to our proposals for this site which would provide a larger area of open space as well as a riverside walkway (which was also a proposal in our phase two consultation scheme). We are reviewing the proposed routes that construction
10-68
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns - Sainsburys supermarket on Townmead Road has recently been granted planning consent to extend the store, in addition to providing residential units on the site. Ensure that adequate and full mitigation of the effects of construction relating to the Thames Tunnel project is provided in the local area to ensure Sainsburys customers experience is not worsened/exacerbated by the proposals, specifically in relation to delays at the junction of Wandsworth Bridge Road/Carnwath Road/Townmead Road.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response traffic would use as part of our transport assessment. If the transport assessment identifies any potential likely significant effects arising from congestion we will develop mitigation measures to minimise the effects of any disruption. We are also developing a CoCP (a draft of which was provided as part of our phase two consultation), which will include a Traffic management plan to ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled to minimise any likely significant effects on the road network including access to the local area, as well as setting out construction traffic routes, site access/egress points, signage and monitoring procedures.
Outcome N
Socio-economic
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic issues Table 10.5.32 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to socio-economic issues during construction Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID 7839, 7904, 7985, 8518 11014, 11026, 11047, 11084, 11105, 11112, 11125, 11188, 11225, 11232, 11272, 11375, 11421, 11429, 11479, 11535, 11552, 11565, 11574, 11575, 11643, 11656, 11674, 11687, 11688, 11759, 11776, 11793, 11814, 11861, 11872, 11890, 11931, 11936, 11989, 11997, 12102, 12146, 12171, 12173, 12250, 12295, 12297, 12298, 12327, 12454, 12464, 12475, 12608, 12618, 12662, 12690, 12720, 12726, 12742, 12777, 12844, 12864, 12875, 12877, 12880, 12885, 13041, 7494, 7502, 7663 11013, 11014, 11105, 11112, 11642, 11684, 11753, 11768, 11880, 11888, 11940, 12092, 12202, 12219, 12222, 12529, 12720, 12742, 12777, 12833, 12879, 12956, 13012, 13148, 13206, 13210, 7780, 7997 11013, 11014, 11039, 11105, 11112, 11139, 11308, 11451, 11510, 11642, 11643, 11684, 11696, 11726, 11753, 11757, 11768, 11814, 11830, 11858, 11866, 11888, 11940, 11987, 11989, 12202, 12219, 12222, 12255, 12295, No. 4 66 Our response Your comments are noted.
10.5.202 The preferred site is the least disruptive option for the local community. 10.5.203 Not concerned by permanent relocation of Carnwath Road Industrial Estate.
10.5.204 Health has been properly addressed by the phase two consultation.
28
10.5.205 The impact on local schools has been properly addressed by the phase two consultation.
52
10-69
Ref
Respondent ID 12297, 12351, 12370, 12529, 12637, 12687, 12720, 12742, 12777, 12783, 12791, 12833, 12879, 13012, 13148, 13206, 13210, 13217, 7403, 7780, 7914, 7997 11013, 11014, 11105, 11112, 11308, 11375, 11642, 11684, 11753, 11768, 11830, 11831, 11888, 11940, 11989, 12043, 12092, 12111, 12188, 12202, 12219, 12222, 12255, 12296, 12297, 12298, 12351, 12529, 12720, 12742, 12777, 12783, 12833, 12879, 13012, 13063, 13120, 13148, 13206, 13210, 13217, 7997 11013, 11014, 11094, 11105, 11112, 11642, 11666, 11722, 11753, 11768, 11858, 11888, 11940, 12070, 12092, 12111, 12221, 12222, 12529, 12544, 12720, 12742, 12777, 12833, 12879, 13120, 13148, 13188, 13206, 7780, 7997, 8118 11013, 11014, 11026, 11094, 11105, 11112, 11272, 11401, 11475, 11499, 11501, 11633, 11642, 11656, 11684, 11691, 11696, 11703, 11719, 11724, 11753, 11757, 11764, 11767, 11768, 11791, 11800, 11808, 11809, 11858, 11866, 11874, 11875, 11888, 11890, 11903, 11938, 11940, 11961, 11970, 11987, 11989, 12061, 12066, 12075, 12113, 12151, 12159, 12222, 12225, 12255, 12276, 12319, 12374, 12405, 12420, 12445, 12516, 12529, 12530, 12544, 12568, 12573, 12626, 12637, 12687, 12709, 12720, 12729, 12742, 12758, 12777, 12783, 12789, 12819, 12833, 12836, 12847, 12858, 12879, 12926, 12956, 12981, 13002, 13012, 13048, 13066, 13120, 13148, 13206, 13210, 13217, 7147, 7403, 7780, 7997, 8118, 8209, 8874 7997 7839, 7904, 7985, 8518 11014, 11026, 11047, 11084, 11105, 11112, 11125, 11188, 11225, 11232,
No.
Our response
10.5.206 The impact on local businesses has been properly addressed by the phase two consultation.
42
10.5.207 The impact on immediate neighbouring residents has been properly addressed by the phase two consultation.
32
10.5.208 The impact on house prices has been properly addressed by the phase two consultation.
99
10.5.209 Supportive/general comment. 10.5.210 The preferred site is the least disruptive option for the local community. 10.5.211 Not concerned by permanent relocation of Carnwath Road Industrial Estate.
1 4 66
10-70
Ref
Respondent ID 11272, 11375, 11421, 11429, 11479, 11535, 11552, 11565, 11574, 11575, 11643, 11656, 11674, 11687, 11688, 11759, 11776, 11793, 11814, 11861, 11872, 11890, 11931, 11936, 11989, 11997, 12102, 12146, 12171, 12173, 12250, 12295, 12297, 12298, 12327, 12454, 12464, 12475, 12608, 12618, 12662, 12690, 12720, 12726, 12742, 12777, 12844, 12864, 12875, 12877, 12880, 12885, 13041, 7494, 7502, 7663
No.
Our response
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic issues Table 10.5.33 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic issues during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. 6 Our response Our PEIR (volume 13, section 10) provides a preliminary assessment of the likely significant socio-economic effects of the project building on the preliminary findings of a range of topics including noise and vibration, air quality (including dust emissions), odour, and transport, based on a methodology that has been agreed with LBHF. Our Environmental statement, which will be submitted with our DCO application, will provide a full assessment of our proposed works, together with appropriate mitigation to address any significant effects. As detailed in our PEIR (volume 13, section 10) the construction works would result in the demolition and thus displacement of businesses at the Carnwath Road Industrial Estate and the use of land at Whiffin and Hurlingham Wharves. Accordingly, the businesses operating within the industrial estate would require alternative premises to operate from for the duration of the construction period. Any existing businesses would be assisted with relocation in line with our published A guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme. Therefore we do not believe that there would be a loss of employment associated with the works. There would also be a temporary reduction in employment land, as Whiffin and Hurlingham Wharves would be used for our works. However, we note that these sites are and that the draft South Fulham Regeneration SPD proposes residential use of this area. We are committed to minimising disruption wherever possible. In the event that a business suffers financial loss as a result of the works, we have published A guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme which sets out details of compensation that would be available arising from Outcome N
10.5.212 Potential socio-economic effects will be 13397LO, 7228, 7342, 7675, 8923, greater than those set out in the consultation LR13441 material. 10.5.213 It is not clear what the scale of socioeconomic effects will be; the assessment to date is very vague. 7352, 7364, 7848, 7914, 7958, 8313, 8747, 8884, LR13441
10.5.214 Temporary business relocation and associated effects. 10.5.215 Detrimental effect on business operations. 10.5.216 Loss of jobs due to business relocation.
GLA, LBHF, 9400LO, 7192, 7397, 7972, 8543, 8636, LR9418 See annex C of this report LBHF, 9261LO, 11284, 12063, 12066, 12539, 12687, 7156, 7471, 7497, 7514, 7518, 7526, 7527, 7618, 7628, 7647, 7657, 7673, 7824, 7848, 9377, LR9418 7476, 7482, 7502, 9461 LBHF, 9131LO, 12062, 12737, 12913, 13363, 7110, 7180, 7199, 7269, 7394, 7424, 7482, 7513, 7543, 7557, 7634, 7639, 7657, 7702, 7752, 7753, 7759, 7764, 7765, 7766, 7794, 7809, 7824, 7833, 7848, 7892, 7899, 7914, 7931, 7949, 8030, 8037, 8085, 8121, 8140, 8189, 8211, 8413, 8755, 9089, 9201, 9466, 9474
9 2,297 23
N N N
10.5.217 Effect on tourism and associated revenue. 10.5.218 Effect on the local economy and employment; loss of jobs and local businesses, lack of desire of shoppers, visitors and local residents to spend their time in the neighbourhood while the works are going on.
4 49
N N
10-71
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response damage or loss during construction. We also anticipate that any consent would include a number of 'requirements' (similar to planning conditions) that would set restrictions on our works to safeguard the surrounding area. A full assessment of the likely significant effects of the works on the local economy and businesses would be set out in the Environmental statement that we will submit with our DCO application. We are aware of the regeneration proposals set out in the draft South Fulham Riverside SPD and are developing our proposals to complement the development aspirations for the area. We acknowledge that our works will mean that delivery of the regeneration proposals will be delayed until our works are complete, but we believe that the wider benefits that will arise from the improvements to the River Thames will have a significant positive effect on the local area and its image. Landowners may have a statutory entitlement to claim compensation for the diminution on the value of their property due to the construction of the tunnel. In addition to the statutory process we have published an Exceptional hardship procedure which sets out how we will assess claims from householders who contend that they are suffering exceptional hardship as a result of being unable to sell their property because it is potentially impacted by the currently published Thames Tunnel project proposals. We have also published A guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme which sets out details of compensation that would be available arising from damage or loss during construction, for required protection measures, and for compulsory purchase. As set out in our draft CoCP (section 4.7) site security is an important issue to us and we would ensure that all sites are secure and staffed for security on a 24-hour basis; would have limited entry points and a boundary that minimises opportunities for unauthorised entry. We would also consult with local crime prevention officers to agree security proposals for each site and liaise regularly to review security effectiveness and responses to any incidents. The design of our site boundary would also ensure that there is adequate lighting (CoCP, section 4.6) in order to provide a safe route for passing members of the public and we would take precautions to avoid shadows cast by our site hoarding on surrounding footpaths and roads to limit the potential for muggings. Where agreed with LBHF, we would also have remote CCTV monitoring.
Outcome
10.5.219 Effect on the image, reputation and regeneration of local area. 10.5.220 Proposed construction work will blight the local area.
7168, 7199, 7250, 7639, 8870 LBHF, 9417LO, 13092, 13194, 7424, 7694, 7933, 8451, 8747, LR9418
5 10
N N
10.5.221 Effect on property prices. 10.5.222 Effect on ability to sell/rent property.
See annex C of this report 13397LO, 7285LO, 9400LO, 7015, 7121, 7345, 7362, 7567, 7607, 7763, 7765, 7786, 7824, 7847, 7890, 8030, 8047, 8111, 8313, 8621, 8684, 8747, 8906, 8926 9261LO, 7471, 7949, 8755, 8926 7015, 7121, 7137, 7499, 7518, 7569, 7680, 7702, 7763, 7920, 8111, 8140, 8189, 8192, 8211, 8287, 8923, 9461 9400LO, 7848
2,244 24
N N
10.5.223 Concerned about compulsory purchase. 10.5.224 Proposals will require relocation of homes and cause population displacement. 10.5.225 Affected residents and families cannot ask the council to re-house them. 10.5.226 Proposals will create increased opportunities for crime, vandalism and antisocial behaviour.
5 18
N N
13092, 7121, 7267, 7352
10-72
Ref
Respondent ID LBHF, 9131LO, 9392LO, 11835, 11946, 12860, 12913, 12958, 13066, 7102, 7179, 7235, 7267, 7269, 7343, 7397, 7523, 7549, 7673, 7738, 7794, 7824, 7865, 7934, 8007, 8117, 8223, 8312, 8327, 8463, 8691, 8724, 9089, LR13427, LR13441, LR9418
No. 36
Our response The site would be operated in line with all relevant health and safety standards and requirements, as detailed in our draft CoCP. In particular, our construction traffic would be controlled in line with measures set out at section 5 of our CoCP and safety of other road users and the surrounding community is important to us. We will operate all of our construction sites to ensure that they meet all health and safety requirements. We are also preparing a Health impact assessment that will examine the likely significant effects of the proposed development on human health and wellbeing and possible effects within the population. The findings of this study will inform the design for this site as well as mitigation measures to address any significant effects. Furthermore our PEIR (volume 13, section 4) considers the effects of the works on air quality.
Outcome N
10.5.227 Health and safety issues associated with the site, including: - chemicals from construction dust particles may cause a multi-party claim in future - danger to children - potential for unnecessary deaths and injuries is increased - three neighbouring school communities.
10.5.228 Effect on quality of life, including effect on children's education and difficulties dropping children off from work and commuting.
LBHF, 13397LO, 7285LO, 9110LO, 9131LO, 9400LO, 11024, 11059, 12712, 13029, 13121, 13168, 13363, 7015, 7050, 7102, 7179, 7254, 7338, 7352, 7353, 7364, 7377, 7386, 7387, 7389, 7394, 7408, 7412, 7432, 7437, 7461, 7466, 7472, 7476, 7482, 7497, 7506, 7507, 7513, 7524, 7532, 7537, 7560, 7573, 7576, 7607, 7663, 7670, 7680, 7697, 7699, 7700, 7702, 7741, 7751, 7794, 7824, 7851, 7856, 7881, 7899, 7920, 7932, 7933, 7934, 7968, 8027, 8037, 8047, 8079, 8104, 8108, 8117, 8139, 8287, 8313, 8318, 8404, 8457, 8537, 8542, 8652, 8684, 8727, 8755, 8865, 8870, 8923, 8963, 9303, 9461, LR13382, LR13474, LR9154 LBHF, 13397LO, 7285LO, 8082LO, 9110LO, 9495LO, 11216, 11230, 11291, 11689, 11804, 11817, 11835, 11849, 11953, 12015, 12147, 12242, 12292, 12340, 12519, 12539, 12635, 12638, 12671, 12751, 12858, 12863, 12866, 12894, 12980, 13008, 13031, 13122, 13145, 13152, 13156, 13363, 13395, 7012, 7035, 7050, 7107, 7110, 7127, 7179, 7186, 7348, 7363, 7375, 7377, 7387, 7389, 7397, 7405, 7416, 7424, 7461, 7469, 7474, 7476, 7481, 7495, 7502, 7512, 7522, 7526, 7547, 7550, 7618, 7668, 7669, 7671, 7674, 7680,
95
10.5.229 Effect on human health of residents and children, including asthma, rats, stress, psychological impacts, allergies and cancers.
125
Our PEIR (volume 13) provides a preliminary assessment of N the likely significant effects of the project on a range of topics, including noise and vibration, air quality (including dust emissions), odour, and transport, based on a methodology that has been agreed with LBHF. A full assessment will be provided with the Environmental statement that is submitted with our DCO application. Where likely significant effects are identified we would put in place mitigation measures to address these effects, in addition to the measures that are set out in our draft CoCP. We are also preparing a Health impact assessment that will examine the likely significant effects of the proposed development on human mental and physical health and wellbeing and possible effects within the population. The findings of this study will inform the design for this site as well as mitigation measures to address any significant effects. N
10-73
Ref
Respondent ID 7700, 7752, 7753, 7759, 7764, 7765, 7766, 7783, 7794, 7816, 7824, 7833, 7846, 7856, 7865, 7869, 7870, 7894, 7898, 7932, 7933, 7949, 7958, 7971, 8007, 8008, 8011, 8021, 8022, 8026, 8030, 8036, 8037, 8096, 8103, 8111, 8117, 8121, 8139, 8210, 8302, 8457, 8512, 8621, 8724, 8923, 9089, 9461, 9474, LR9418 LBHF, 13397LO, 8278LO, 8807LO, 9169LO, 9392LO, 12167, 12539, 7005, 7007, 7012, 7035, 7102, 7127, 7193, 7197, 7217, 7352, 7369, 7371, 7388, 7397, 7400, 7427, 7435, 7439, 7462, 7470, 7471, 7482, 7483, 7494, 7497, 7506, 7513, 7514, 7517, 7521, 7523, 7526, 7532, 7537, 7538, 7654, 7765, 7769, 7816, 7824, 7847, 7894, 7949, 7958, 7976, 8008, 8021, 8036, 8038, 8103, 8210, 8413, 8543, 8621, 8689, 8725, 8878, 8923, 9135, 9408, LR13434, LR9118, LR9154 See annex C of this report GLA, LBHF, 13397LO, 7285LO, 8807LO, 9110LO, 9131LO, 9169LO, 9392LO, 9400LO, 9495LO, 12539, 13363, 7005, 7007, 7035, 7102, 7107, 7110, 7112, 7117, 7118, 7125, 7133, 7142, 7147, 7148, 7156, 7164, 7173, 7177, 7180, 7186, 7187, 7193, 7196, 7201, 7202, 7217, 7225, 7230, 7235, 7239, 7250, 7276, 7337, 7343, 7345, 7348, 7353, 7362, 7364, 7377, 7400, 7408, 7412, 7427, 7428, 7432, 7433, 7434, 7437, 7438, 7461, 7462, 7470, 7471, 7472, 7474, 7477, 7478, 7479, 7481, 7483, 7485, 7495, 7498, 7505, 7507, 7512, 7513, 7516, 7518, 7519, 7521, 7525, 7526, 7527, 7532, 7535, 7538, 7541, 7548, 7549, 7556, 7557, 7565, 7576, 7610, 7628, 7639, 7654, 7657, 7663, 7666, 7670, 7674, 7676, 7678, 7680, 7687, 7691, 7692, 7693, 7697, 7698, 7701, 7702, 7704, 7705, 7730, 7734, 7738, 7752, 7753, 7759, 7764, 7765, 7766, 7776, 7783, 7786, 7793, 7809,
No.
Our response
Outcome
10.5.230 Effect on residential amenity, including peace and quiet and difficulties with sleeping particularly for children, disabled, aged and persons with health issues.
71
10.5.231 Effects on health have not been properly addressed by the phase two consultation. 10.5.232 Proximity to residential properties, including social housing, housing for the disabled and elderly, sheltered housing. The council has planned an additional 2,000 homes for the area.
2,282 192 Our site selection process, as detailed in our site selection methodology, included an assessment of the shortlisted sites against five 'community' considerations to help determine their suitability. They included proximity to sensitive receptors (including residential and schools), socio-economic, health and equality considerations. Our Phase two scheme development report provides an overview of how each site was chosen. Our PEIR (volume 13, section 10) provides a preliminary assessment of the likely significant socio-economic effects of the project on residential amenity and concludes that there would be a significant effect. However, it is noted that the effects would vary over different stages of the works as activities would vary in intensity at different times. We are preparing an Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of our DCO application. The Environmental statement will assess the likely significant effects of the proposed development and identify mitigation measures, in addition to those set out in our CoCP, required to address any significant effects. While the use of this site during construction of the tunnel will prevent it from being available for redevelopment in the
N N
10-74
Ref
Respondent ID 7824, 7847, 7848, 7856, 7870, 7892, 7894, 7898, 7922, 7932, 7934, 7949, 7958, 7968, 8007, 8030, 8043, 8079, 8081, 8085, 8096, 8109, 8111, 8115, 8117, 8121, 8140, 8146, 8192, 8209, 8210, 8288, 8313, 8325, 8404, 8413, 8457, 8487, 8537, 8542, 8648, 8652, 8656, 8678, 8681, 8725, 8727, 8734, 8743, 8747, 8755, 8830, 8865, 8884, 8926, 9303, 9466, 9474 LC, 13397LO, 8082LO, 9131LO, 9400LO, 9495LO, 13363, 7012, 7015, 7020, 7102, 7104, 7117, 7118, 7121, 7129, 7133, 7148, 7179, 7226, 7228, 7244, 7269, 7337, 7352, 7377, 7396, 7427, 7432, 7461, 7466, 7469, 7476, 7478, 7483, 7485, 7498, 7502, 7518, 7521, 7523, 7526, 7533, 7534, 7538, 7545, 7547, 7556, 7564, 7638, 7666, 7669, 7693, 7694, 7702, 7728, 7731, 7751, 7752, 7753, 7759, 7763, 7764, 7765, 7766, 7780, 7786, 7795, 7824, 7833, 7836, 7848, 7851, 7856, 7865, 7869, 7892, 7913, 7931, 7933, 7934, 7949, 7958, 7968, 7977, 8007, 8011, 8030, 8075, 8091, 8094, 8102, 8103, 8108, 8117, 8121, 8139, 8211, 8241, 8302, 8313, 8327, 8411, 8512, 8528, 8542, 8543, 8684, 8691, 8725, 8749, 8755, 8884, 9460, LR9118 LC, GLA, LBHF, 13397LO, 7285LO, 8082LO, 9392LO, 9495LO, 11413, 12539, 13363, 7005, 7007, 7012, 7015, 7031, 7035, 7102, 7107, 7110, 7117, 7118, 7125, 7131, 7133, 7142, 7148, 7156, 7164, 7168, 7173, 7177, 7179, 7186, 7187, 7202, 7217, 7226, 7228, 7239, 7267, 7269, 7345, 7352, 7375, 7387, 7388, 7394, 7396, 7400, 7433, 7437, 7438, 7466, 7470, 7472, 7474, 7476, 7477, 7478, 7481, 7491, 7494, 7497, 7500, 7502, 7505, 7507, 7513, 7518, 7521, 7522, 7532, 7535, 7541, 7545, 7548, 7557, 7558, 7565, 7571, 7577, 7628, 7654, 7668, 7669, 7674, 7680, 7687, 7691, 7692, 7693, 7697, 7698, 7705, 7731, 7738, 7751, 7752, 7753, 7757, 7759, 7764, 7765, 7766, 7783,
No.
Our response short term, the permanent layout and design of the site minimises the amount of land that is needed permanently, allowing as much of the site as possible to be developed for its designated use. Currently there is no existing planning permission for the site and we note that the Secretary of State has issued an Article 25 Direction that prevents the determination of all planning applications that affect this site.
Outcome
10.5.233 The local area is densely populated with large numbers of school children, families and businesses.
115
10.5.234 Proximity to and effect on community and social amenities such as schools, nurseries, disabled residents homes, old people's home and leisure facilities.
174
10-75
Ref
Respondent ID 7786, 7793, 7809, 7833, 7836, 7847, 7856, 7865, 7870, 7877, 7890, 7892, 7898, 7933, 7949, 7958, 7968, 7977, 8022, 8026, 8030, 8036, 8043, 8075, 8079, 8081, 8085, 8096, 8097, 8102, 8103, 8109, 8117, 8121, 8139, 8192, 8209, 8210, 8211, 8241, 8302, 8336, 8404, 8411, 8457, 8463, 8472, 8537, 8636, 8648, 8652, 8656, 8691, 8725, 8727, 8747, 8749, 8755, 8830, 8838, 8855, 8884, 8906, 8926, 9089, 9303, 9466, LR9118 LBHF, 13363, 7007, 7031, 7133, 7147, 7230, 7344, 7364, 7377, 7432, 7437, 7470, 7472, 7502, 7524, 7526, 7544, 7573, 7607, 7824, 7833, 7865, 7877, 7931, 7932, 7984, 8026, 8103, 8241, 8512, 8684, 8727, 8747, 8755, 8906 13363, 13397LO, 8046LO, 8082LO, 8807LO, 9400LO, 7012, 7035, 7102, 7125, 7129, 7135, 7173, 7197, 7208, 7209, 7217, 7336, 7353, 7364, 7382, 7397, 7417, 7427, 7428, 7430, 7435, 7462, 7464, 7472, 7476, 7478, 7483, 7485, 7491, 7498, 7500, 7506, 7513, 7519, 7526, 7533, 7534, 7537, 7542, 7553, 7561, 7565, 7618, 7657, 7663, 7671, 7674, 7702, 7704, 7728, 7731, 7752, 7753, 7759, 7763, 7764, 7765, 7766, 7780, 7786, 7793, 7794, 7824, 7847, 7848, 7856, 7869, 7870, 7892, 7900, 7958, 7968, 7984, 8007, 8030, 8036, 8043, 8081, 8091, 8121, 8124, 8139, 8140, 8146, 8189, 8287, 8288, 8313, 8336, 8404, 8472, 8503, 8537, 8543, 8547, 8684, 8689, 8747, 8855, 9089, 9461, 9474, 9338PET 8278LO, 9110LO, 9400LO, 7012, 7020, 7112, 7125, 7147, 7177, 7178, 7181, 7187, 7216, 7217, 7220, 7244, 7369, 7377, 7408, 7424, 7431, 7462, 7464, 7466, 7482, 7498, 7519, 7521, 7523, 7524, 7543, 7545, 7564, 7565, 7674, 7675, 7677, 7693, 7694, 7700, 7702, 7730, 7751, 7793, 7824, 7848, 7865, 7869, 7877, 7894, 7899, 7900, 7913, 7931, 7932, 7954, 7971, 7984, 8027,
No.
Our response
Outcome
10.5.235 Extent and duration of construction works in a predominantly residential area and concern about the effect it will have on school children.
36
10.5.236 Effect on the local community, including school children, immigrants and refugees. The impact will be felt throughout South Fulham.
109
10.5.237 Effect of disruption on local schools, residents and businesses caused by the 24hour construction work.
89
10-76
Ref
Respondent ID 8094, 8110, 8115, 8124, 8192, 8209, 8211, 8218, 8223, 8241, 8312, 8325, 8329, 8336, 8411, 8451, 8457, 8487, 8494, 8678, 8743, 8755, 8785, 8888, 8963, 9008, 9089, 9201, 9461, 9466 See annex C of this report
No.
Our response
Outcome
10.5.238 Effect on local schools has not been properly addressed by the phase two consultation. 10.5.239 Effect on immediate neighbouring residents has not been properly addressed by the phase two consultation. 10.5.240 More information is needed on socioeconomic effects.
2,244
2,286
8581, 9461
We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. We carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. Details of our proposals were set out in our site information paper and a preliminary assessment of the likely significant socioeconomic effects was set out in our PEIR (volume 13, section 10). We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient. The likely significant effect of the works on local schools would be set out in our Environmental statement, which will be submitted as part of our DCO application. Where likely significant effects are identified we would put in place appropriate mitigation measures to address those effects and we would discuss our proposed approach with LBHF and, where appropriate, with individual schools. We have provided A guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme, which sets out the circumstances in which compensation would be available. In the event that we need to compulsory purchase and or acquire property rights, compensation would be available in accordance with the relevant legislation. Any requirement to acquire sub-soil rights would form a part of our DCO application and we have provided A guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme, which sets out details of the statutory compensation code and how it would apply.
10.5.241 Other socio-economic issues: - parents may seek alternative schools to send their children to in order to avoid disruption - concern that Thames Water may need to acquire soil rights below properties.
8807LO, 13363, 7121, 7148, 7217, 7230, 7364, 7375, 7377, 7537, 7900, 12969
12
Supportive and neutral comments in relation to measures proposed to address the effects of socio-economic issues 10.5.242 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to measures to address socio-economic effects during construction.
10-77
Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to address the effects of socio-economic issues Table 10.5.34 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions for addressing socio-economic effects during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 8807LO, 9392LO, 13363, 7164, 7228, 7235, 7250, 7397, 7430, 7471, 7506, 7513, 7544, 7675, 7763, 7958, 8313, 8457, 8542, 8785 8807LO, 9400LO, 7869, 8115, 8512, 8621, LR9154 No. 20 Our response Refer to our response at paragraph 10.3.29 above. Outcome N
10.5.243 Use an alternative site (Barnes - fewer people).
10.5.244 More information is needed on socioeconomic mitigation.
10.5.245 Mitigation proposed to address the issues is inadequate/insufficient; will not be possible to relocate businesses, no available land in vicinity of site. 10.5.246 Provide alternative business premises. 10.5.247 Provision of appropriate compensation for homes and businesses.
7012, 7031, 7192, 7201, 7375, 7675, 7898, 7913, 8038, 8313, 8457, 8621, 8749, 8755, 8855, 9089 GLA 8046LO, 11230, 12969, 13021, 13097, 13135, 13212, 13232, 13363, 7050, 7121, 7472, 7752, 7753, 7793, 7847, 7949, 7958, 8030, 8121, 8413, 8621, 9377
16
1 23
We have set out a range of measures that will mitigate the likely significant effects of the construction at this site. In particular our draft CoCP identifies that our contractor will be required to implement a range of measures at the site during construction, including best practice measures to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, the siting of equipment and the use of hoardings to provide acoustic screens. Additionally, our PEIR assessments take into account the mitigation measures set out in the CoCP and therefore assume that the mitigation is implemented. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of the likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Our DCO application will also include our CoCP. As detailed in our PEIR (volume 13, section 10) the construction works would result in the demolition and thus displacement of businesses at the Carnwath Road Industrial Estate and the use of land at Whiffin and Hurlingham Wharves. Accordingly, the businesses operating within the industrial estate would require alternative premises to operate from for the duration of the construction period. Any existing businesses would be assisted with relocation in line with our published A guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme. Therefore we do not believe that there would be a loss of employment associated with the works. Landowners may have a statutory entitlement to claim compensation for the diminution on the value of their property due to the construction of the tunnel. In addition to the statutory process, we have published an Exceptional hardship procedure which sets out how we will assess claims from householders who contend that they are suffering exceptional hardship as a result of being unable to sell their property because it is potentially impacted by the currently published Thames Tunnel project proposals. We have also published A guide to the Thames Tunnel
N N
10.5.248 Other socio-economic mitigation; will properties sell at market price?
12979, 12986, 12987, 12988, 12989, 12990, 12994, 13004, 13005, 13007, 13025, 13028, 13032, 13033, 13034, 13035, 13036, 13037, 13082, 13083, 13085, 13111, 13112, 13146, 13160, 13179, 13180, 13184, 13192, 13195, 13198, 13200, 13201, 7700, 7801, 9063, 9067, 9474, LR13441
39
10-78
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response compensation programme which sets out details of compensation that would be available arising from damage or loss during construction, for required protection measures, and for compulsory purchase.
Outcome
Structures and utilities

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to structures and utilities Table 10.5.35 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to structures and utilities during construction Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID 8944 No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted.
10.5.249 Supportive/general comment.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities Table 10.5.36 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 7786 No. 1 Our response Our PEIR (volume 13, section 9) sets out our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of noise and vibration. In relation to vibration, the assessment considers events which have the potential to result in damage to buildings or structures and the human response to vibration, based on the 'worst case' conditions that may arise during vibration intense activities within the site compound. The preliminary assessment identifies that there is likely to be a significant effect arising from vibration associated with our works at 85 and 89-101 Carnwath Road, but that at all other assessed properties effects would not be significant. We will undertake an assessment of the impact of our works on the stability of the river wall and flood defences and where necessary we will provide strengthening to ensure that the walls integrity is maintained. The assessment will be undertaken to industry best practice guidelines and to the approval of the Environment Agency and other relevant stakeholders and would be reported in the Environmental statement that is submitted with our DCO application. Our Settlement project information paper provides information on our approach to controlling and limiting the ground movement, which can cause settlement, associated with construction of the tunnel. It is acknowledged that construction of the tunnel will cause some small movements in the ground, the level of which will depend on a range of factors including size and depth of construction works as well as existing ground conditions. The use of modern tunnelling methods and the depth of our tunnels, which are generally much deeper than most other tunnels in London, minimises the likelihood of any potential ground movement. Outcome N
10.5.250 It is not clear what the scale of the effect will be; the assessment to date is very vague in particular in relation to effects of vibration associated with excavating the main shaft. 10.5.251 Risk of subsidence from excessive drilling and vibration, which will exacerbate an existing issue. 10.5.252 Structural damage to Wandsworth Bridge. 10.5.253 Structural damage to residential buildings including the effect on foundations. 10.5.254 Structural damage to other buildings close to the site.
7331LO, 8807LO, 13363, 7173, 9377, 9461, LR9118 8884 9169LO, 7173, 7865, 800, 89377 7331LO, 8807LO, 7148, 7786, 9377
1 5 5 1 1
N N N N N
10.5.255 Structural damage to other structures arising 9253 from construction activities. 10.5.256 Possibility of ground movement and the 7786 associated effect on buildings and structures associated with effects on sub-soil. 10.5.257 Risk of subsidence from tunnelling and need 8008, 8210 to undertake strengthening works to Hurlingham Wharf. 10.5.258 Structural damage to residential buildings arising from tunnelling. 10.5.259 Structural damage to other buildings close to the site arising from tunnelling. 8008, 8404 7331LO
2 1 1
N N N
10.5.260 Possibility of ground movement and 8210 associated effect on buildings and structures
10-79
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns arising from tunnelling.
Respondent ID 8807LO, 7464
No. 2
10.5.261 Works may invalidate insurance, with particular concerns around risk of subsidence associated with the works. 10.5.262 Other structures and utilities issues: no one can get insurance if they try to buy house with damaged foundations.
8537, LR9118
Our response We are assessing the potential likely significant effects of ground movement in advance of the works and, where necessary, will carry out protective measures. We will also monitor actual ground movement during and after the tunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted. We will also carry out a defects survey on buildings located over, or close to, our tunnels and worksites where we consider this to be required. The method used for assessing settlement is similar to that used for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, the Jubilee Line Extension, and Crossrail. In the unlikely event of damage occurring to property because of our construction works taking place nearby, disturbance compensation may be available as detailed in our A guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme. Any utilities close to or within our sites would be surveyed prior to and protected during construction. We do not consider the presence of the NG cable tunnel to be a factor that would preclude development at this site as we have located our shaft to the west of Carnwath Road Industrial Estate. Landowners may have a statutory entitlement to claim compensation for the diminution on the value of their property due to the construction of the tunnel. We have also published A guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme which sets out details of compensation that would be available arising from damage or loss during construction, for required protection measures, and for compulsory purchase.
Outcome N
10.5.263 Damage to utilities arising from tunnelling including the Wimbledon to Kensal Green National Grid (NG) cable tunnel.
9337
10.5.264 Concerned about the acquisition of sub-soil rights.
7900, 8115
Supportive and neutral comments in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities 10.5.265 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during construction. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities Table 10.5.37 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address the measures proposed in relation to the effects on structures and utilities during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. 1 Our response Our Settlement project information paper provides information on our approach to controlling and limiting the ground movement, which can cause settlement, associated with construction of the tunnel. It is acknowledged that construction of the tunnel will cause some small movements in the ground, the level of which will depend on a range of factors including size and depth of construction works as well as existing ground conditions. The use of modern tunnelling methods and the depth of our tunnels, which are Outcome N
10.5.266 Mitigation proposed to address the issues is 7865 inadequate/insufficient for reasons including: if there is a leak, collapse or any structural damage during the works, these have not been anticipated and effective management of similar crisis has not been taken into consideration. 10.5.267 Undertake structural monitoring of other structures. 9253
10-80
Ref
Respondent ID 8847 8807LO, 9377, 9461
No. 1 3
10.5.268 Provide structural reinforcements. 10.5.269 Provide suitable compensation.
Our response Outcome generally much deeper than most other tunnels in London, N minimises the likelihood of any potential ground movement. N We are assessing the likely significant effects of ground movement in advance of the works and, where necessary, will carry out protective measures. We will also monitor actual ground movement during and after the tunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted. We will also carry out a defects survey on buildings located over, or close to, our tunnels and worksites where we consider this to be required. The method used for assessing settlement is similar to that used for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, the Jubilee Line Extension, and Crossrail. In the unlikely event of damage occurring to property because of our construction works taking place nearby, compensation may be available as detailed in our A guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme. Our PEIR (volume 13, section 9) sets out our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of noise and vibration. Tthe assessment considers events that have the potential to damage buildings or structures and the human response to vibration, based on the 'worst case' conditions that may arise during vibration-intense activities within the site compound. We will assess the impact of our works on the stability of the river wall and flood defences. Where necessary we will provide strengthening to ensure the walls integrity is maintained. The assessment will be undertaken to industry best practice guidelines and to the approval of the Environment Agency and other relevant stakeholders. It will be presented in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of our DCO application. We will undertake a detailed assessment of potential ground movement and settlement caused by our works and ensure that there is no damage to any nearby structures. We would repair any damage caused to buildings by our construction works. Repairs needed as a result of the construction of our works would be organised and undertaken by Thames Water and we would organise and cover the expense of these repairs. Alternatively the property owner may claim the cost of repair, provided that these costs were agreed with us beforehand. Our works would therefore have no bearing on individual insurance policies. Our Settlement project information paper provides further information on our approach should structural damage occur requiring repair. Our A Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme sets out how people living or working near our worksites will be protected in the unlikely event they are affected by our works. N
10.5.270 Other structures and utilities mitigation: a party wall survey before works start to determine conditions of existing properties that are adjacent to the River Thames and the river wall.
8502
10-81
Townscape and visual

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to townscape and visual issues Table 10.5.38 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to townscape and visual issues during construction Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID 7855 7744 No. 1 1 Our response Your comments on how our works will improve the image and character of the area are noted and welcomed.
10.5.271 Proposals will improve the image and character of the area. 10.5.272 Proposals will create new or improved views.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual issues Table 10.5.39 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual issues during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 9417LO, 9481LO, 9495LO, 7386, 7463, 7482, 7518, 7657, 9461 7971 11576, 7387, 7533 No. 9 Our response Outcome
10.5.273 Effect of construction activities, machinery and site hoarding, shed enclosure and gantry cranes. 10.5.275 Effect of construction activities and structures on local views. 10.5.277 Effect of construction activities and structures on river views.
1 3
A preliminary assessment of likely significant townscape and N 10.5.274 visual effects has been undertaken and is presented in the PEIR (volume 13, section 9). Our draft CoCP also sets out measures to ensure that the townscape and visual effects of 10.5.276 N construction are minimised, eg, through protection of existing trees to BS5837 Trees in Relation to Construction 10.5.278 N Recommendations and the use of appropriate capped and directional lighting when required. We are undertaking a townscape and visual impact assessment as part of our environmental impact assessment that will identify any likely significant effects of our proposed construction activities and any measures required to address such effects, eg well-designed, visually attractive hoardings or early planting to create visual screening where appropriate. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. The site currently comprises an industrial estate and10.5.280 N two vacant wharves. The wharves are surrounded by hoardings and one has been given special safeguarded status for such 10.5.282 N a purpose by the Mayor of London. Our proposals for this wharf are in keeping with the existing character of the area and the wharfs designated use. Our draft CoCP sets out measures that would ensure that the construction site would N be well operated and maintained. The configuration of our works will ensure that once the construction is complete the operational site will make a positive contribution to local character and will not prevent any future regeneration plans for the area.
10.5.279 Effect of construction activities and structures on the character of the local area. 10.5.281 Effect of construction activities and structures on character of the riverside/river frontage. 10.5.283 Visual impact of construction activities on the character and appearance of local green space.
13363, 7466, 7851, 7900, 8537 11849, 7386, 7514, 9135
5 4
7482
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures proposed to address townscape and visual effects 10.5.284 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to measures to address townscape and visual effects during construction.
10-82
Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to address townscape and visual effects Table 10.5.40 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address townscape and visual effects during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 9337 No. 1 Our response The site will be appropriately screened with hoarding to reduce likely significant effects on the local townscape, as detailed in our draft CoCP and PEIR. Details of the approach to screening during construction will be set out in the CoCP that is submitted with our DCO application. Outcome N
10.5.285 Suitable landscaping and planting should be provided to limit effects on the local townscape.
10.5.286 Provide screening for above ground 9461 construction works; specifically designed, attractive and high quality hoardings or other more sophisticated solutions. 10.5.287 A living green wall around whole site perimeter. 9461
Transport and access

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access Table 10.5.41 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to transport and access during construction Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID 7754, 7839, 8152, 8482, 8524, 9239, 9240, 9364, 9382, 9408 No. 10 33 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
10.5.288 Support proposed site access.
10.5.289 Support proposed construction traffic routes. 13483, 7801, 8152, 8518, 8520, 8524, 8582, 8592, 8593, 8594, 8596, 8597, 8599, 8601, 8603, 8605, 8607, 8619, 8620, 8695, 8699, 8700, 8701, 8709, 8710, 8728, 8777, 8800, 8871, 8977, 9354, 9429, LR13478 10.5.290 Proposals for transporting construction materials and spoil are an improvement on those presented at Phase one consultation. 10.5.291 Proposals will ensure that the Thames Path is kept open. 10.5.292 Proposals will not result in, or significantly exacerbate, traffic congestion. 10.5.293 Support proposed use of barges to transport materials: - river transport must be maximised and 850 tonne barges can be used - reaffirm the safeguarded status of the wharf but also benefit such use through, for example, traffic management works, dredging, junction improvements and various other wharf improvements and strengthening - reduces the number of barges travelling 7754
8190, 8730 7569, 8636, 8637, 8638 LC, PLA, 13483, 7160, 7223, 7251, 7744, 7750, 7754, 7855, 7889, 8098, 8151, 8152, 8190, 8482, 8502, 8518, 8524, 8526, 8535, 8542, 8580, 8582, 8592, 8593, 8594, 8596, 8597, 8599, 8601, 8603, 8605, 8607, 8619, 8620, 8637, 8638, 8671, 8695, 8699, 8700, 8701, 8708, 8709, 8710, 8728, 8730, 8777, 8800, 8847, 8871, 8944, 8977, 9068, 9069, 9073, 9144, 9151, 9209, 9239, 9240, 9354, 9408, 9429, LR13478,
2 4 67 Your support is noted and welcomed. We agree that this site allows barges to be used to transport materials from the site. We are currently considering options to increase the use of barges at this site.
10-83
Ref
Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID LR9447 under Putney Bridge. This will be safer for the numerous people who use the river recreationally and will also lessen the risk of damage to the bridge - Thames Water's approach in setting targets for the use of barges and its plans to use barges to remove 90 per cent of spoil from the three main drive sites and for 66 per cent of all excavation material. 9461
No.
Our response
10.5.294 Impact on river boat services; river transport must be utilised; site provides good opportunity to maximise the use of river. 10.5.295 Increased traffic congestion has been properly addressed by the phase two consultation.
Your comments are noted and welcomed.
11013, 11014, 11105, 11112, 11351, 11357, 11642, 11643, 11753, 11757, 11768, 11814, 11940, 11989, 12092, 12111, 12222, 12298, 12374, 12529, 12720, 12742, 12777, 12783, 12833, 12879, 13063, 13120, 13148, 13206, 13217, 7780, 7997, 8118 11014, 11017, 11027, 11048, 11053, 11084, 11105, 11112, 11125, 11141, 11256, 11258, 11304, 11327, 11350, 11364, 11375, 11385, 11420, 11432, 11450, 11456, 11479, 11513, 11531, 11552, 11565, 11574, 11580, 11622, 11656, 11675, 11691, 11701, 11702, 11707, 11735, 11757, 11769, 11782, 11785, 11815, 11831, 11851, 11858, 11861, 11862, 11868, 11888, 11895, 11931, 11954, 11956, 12040, 12046, 12050, 12102, 12146, 12171, 12194, 12231, 12248, 12295, 12297, 12298, 12374, 12385, 12403, 12409, 12418, 12441, 12462, 12467, 12469, 12513, 12547, 12608, 12639, 12641, 12692, 12720, 12726, 12742, 12743, 12753, 12777, 12783, 12784, 12806, 12819, 12841, 12877, 12885, 12909, 12924, 12932, 12945, 12968, 13012, 13015, 13020, 13063, 13072, 13077, 13093, 13120, 13162, 13182, 13216, 13217, 13232, 7780, 7997, 8008, 8043, 8118, 8621
34
Your comments are noted and welcomed.
10.5.296 Not concerned by the temporary suspension or relocation of some on-street car parking.
117
10.5.297 Not concerned by the temporary diversion of 11014, 11053, 11112, 11139, 11141, the Thames Path. 11234, 11304, 11350, 11375, 11391, 11420, 11425, 11450, 11452, 11565, 11622, 11656, 11674, 11675, 11688,
72
10-84
Ref
Respondent ID 11707, 11757, 11769, 11785, 11815, 11831, 11851, 11858, 11872, 11888, 11936, 11947, 11999, 12061, 12075, 12082, 12105, 12146, 12202, 12295, 12365, 12403, 12418, 12469, 12568, 12720, 12726, 12742, 12777, 12779, 12783, 12873, 12927, 12932, 13012, 13015, 13020, 13063, 13093, 13153, 13154, 13162, 13182, 13217, 7549, 7663, 7997, 8008, 8043, 8621, 8743, LR13422 11112, 11565, 11675, 11888, 11989, 12146, 12608, 12720, 12726, 12742, 12777, 12783, 13015, 7997, 8118 7168
No.
Our response
10.5.298 Not concerned by construction traffic on Carnwath and Wandsworth Bridge Road. 10.5.299 Other supportive/general comment: the key transportation issues have been identified.
15
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access Table 10.5.42 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 7102, 7148, 7335, 7342, 7364, 7391, 7507, 7518, 7523, 7524, 7558, 7561, 7565, 7567, 7728, 7741, 7751, 7752, 7753, 7759, 7764, 7765, 7766, 7854, 7881, 7898, 7958, 8027, 8030, 8036, 8112, 8121, 8336, 8537, 8542, 8543, 8755, 9131LO, 9150, 9461 LBHF, 7133, 7346, 7375, 7486, 7500, 7550, 7569, 7972, 8656, 8724, 8884, 9303, LR9418 No. 40 Our response As part of our PEIR (Chapter 13, Section 12) we assessed the likely significant construction transport effects of the proposed development on pedestrian and cycle routes; bus and other public transport routes; patronage; parking; and highway layout, operation and capacity. As part of the assessment we have considered the likely significant effects of lorry and (where applicable) barge transport including likely significant effects of construction traffic on Carnwath Road and Wandsworth Bridge Road based on a methodology that has been discussed and agreed with LBHF and Transport for London (TfL). The PEIR was available as part of our phase two consultation. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment; we are preparing a full Transport assessment for submission as part of our DCO application. The Transport assessment will consider the cumulative effects of our works with other strategic developments in the local area. We are currently considering options to increase the use of barges at this site for the movement of materials during construction. An increase in the use of the river for transportation would result in a reduction in the number of lorry movements. Outcome N
10.5.300 The potential effects will be greater than those set out in the consultation material including effects on local traffic and business.
10.5.301 It is not clear what the scale of transport effects will be; the assessment to date is very vague:
14
how are the narrow roads around Carnwath Road going to cope? made by Thames Water of the impact on local traffic.
- astonishing that no assessment has been
10.5.302 HGV movements have not been properly addressed by the phase two consultation. 10.5.303 Increased traffic congestion has not been properly addressed by the phase two consultation. 10.5.304 Concerned by effect of construction traffic on Carnwath Road and Wandsworth Bridge Road. 10.5.305 Cumulative transport effects arising from
See annex C of this report See annex C of this report
2,288 2,310
N C
2,336
7147, 7387, 7540, 7567, 7809, 7854,
10-85
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns other development in the local area including the Young's Brewery site in Wandsworth, Sainsbury's, Crossrail 2, Lots Rd and Cremorne Wharf developments.
Respondent ID 8528, 8652, LR13382
No.
Our response
Outcome
10.5.306 Disruption to the use of the Thames Path caused by construction works or diversion. 10.5.307 Concerned by diversion of Thames Path. 10.5.308 Effect of disruption, diversion or closure of pedestrian or cycle route.
8807LO, 9392LO, 7156, 7193, 7235, 7424, 7757, 7848, 8414, 8537, 9055, 9303 See annex C of this report 11560, 12793, 7424
12 1,935 3
At this site the existing Thames Path runs partially along N Carnwath Road as the riverside Whiffin and Hurlingham Wharf sites are currently inaccessible to the public. During N the construction phase it would be necessary to make a further temporary diversion to the Thames Path along N Carnwath Road, as illustrated in the Carnwath Road Riverside site information paper. This route has been selected because it would result in minimal diversion and is considered to be the best option for the temporary diversion. Footpath routes would be agreed with LBHF and TfL. It would provide a safe diversion of the Thames Path during construction. Cyclists will be able to continue using Carnwath Road as a cycling route during construction activities. Measures to ensure the safe crossing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists at our site entrances during the construction phase are outlined within our draft CoCP that was published at phase two consultation. Once the works are complete, the Thames Path will be reinstated along Carnwath Road and an additional length of footpath is proposed along Whiffin Wharf. It should be noted that Hurlingham Wharf is a safeguarded wharf which means that we cannot do anything that would prejudice its future use as an operational wharf. We are therefore unable to propose that the Thames Path is extended in front of Hurlingham Wharf. At this site we propose to use barges to transport the C majority of excavated materials from the shaft and tunnel. This is expected to reduce the number of lorry visits to/from this site by approximately 60 per cent. We are currently considering options to increase the use of barges at this site for the movement of materials during construction. An increase in the use of the river for transportation would result in a reduction in the number of lorry movements. Road access to this site is proposed via Carnwath Road which would link to the major road network to the north via Wandsworth Bridge Road and New Kings Road and to the south via Wandsworth Bridge Road, as illustrated in the Carnwath Road Riverside site information paper. It is noted that at the peak of construction at this site, an average of 33 lorries would visit (travelling to and from) the site each day, as indicated in the PEIR (volume 13, section 12). In the
10.5.309 Construction traffic will impact on the residential community and cause traffic congestion along Carnwath Road, Wandsworth Bridge Road, New Kings Road, Kings Road, Townmead Road, Broomhouse Lane and Peterborough Road with 29,000 lorries. A risk assessment is needed.
LC, 7285LO, 7331LO, 8082LO, 9400LO, 9495LO, 11010, 11022, 11039, 11082, 11104, 11178, 11191, 11192, 11193, 11194, 11195, 11196, 11197, 11198, 11199, 11200, 11201, 11202, 11203, 11204, 11205, 11206, 11207, 11208, 11209, 11210, 11211, 11212, 11213, 11214, 11215, 11216, 11217, 11218, 11219, 11220, 11221, 11222, 11296, 11348, 11383, 11389, 11411, 11414, 11545, 11559, 11585, 11637, 11663, 11664, 11695, 11767, 11849, 11878, 11979, 12018, 12039, 12179, 12225, 12241, 12293, 12342, 12386, 12412, 12587, 12659, 12675, 12707, 12710, 12720, 12793, 12866, 12913, 12978, 13122, 13152, 13211, 13214, 7125, 7129,
203
10-86
Ref
Respondent ID 7147, 7196, 7197, 7200, 7202, 7219, 7221, 7232, 7244, 7252, 7337, 7344, 7348, 7352, 7353, 7365, 7377, 7378, 7380, 7381, 7382, 7384, 7390, 7391, 7397, 7411, 7416, 7433, 7462, 7463, 7464, 7482, 7491, 7495, 7498, 7505, 7511, 7515, 7522, 7524, 7532, 7533, 7534, 7541, 7551, 7560, 7569, 7628, 7663, 7666, 7668, 7674, 7678, 7687, 7693, 7697, 7700, 7741, 7752, 7753, 7759, 7776, 7780, 7781, 7786, 7848, 7854, 7856, 7869, 7877, 7894, 7900, 7920, 7931, 7932, 7934, 7968, 7971, 7986, 8036, 8037, 8043, 8045, 8048, 8085, 8092, 8097, 8102, 8104, 8139, 8189, 8192, 8287, 8302, 8312, 8313, 8325, 8327, 8336, 8404, 8413, 8472, 8487, 8493, 8494, 8528, 8636, 8681, 8725, 8830, 8838, 8888, 8963, 9461, LR13425, LR13426, LR9118 13365LO, 7697, 9428
No.
10.5.310 Effect of disruption, diversion or closure of roads on access to local amenities, for example Hurlingham Retail Park. 10.5.311 Effect of construction traffic on business amenity and operation, for example Hurlingham Retail Park. 10.5.312 Effect of construction traffic on residential amenity.
13365LO, 7147, 7472, 7478, 7512, 7549, 7657, 7670, 9428, 9466 GLA, 7331LO, 9131LO, 9169LO, 7005, 7102, 7148, 7199, 7217, 7389, 7394, 7395, 7397, 7435, 7464, 7470, 7478, 7493, 7549, 7560, 7657, 7663, 7670, 7674, 7680, 7691, 7702, 7759, 7851, 7922, 7972, 8026, 8104, 8115, 8117, 8121, 8411, 8457, 8512, 8537, 8656, 8870, 8874, 9008
10
44
Our response context of existing traffic in the local area, the expected construction traffic is not considered to be significant and is not likely to result in congestion on the Transport for London Route Network. We are reviewing the proposed routes that construction traffic would use as part of our transport assessment. If the transport assessment identifies any potential likely significant effects arising from congestion we will develop mitigation measures to minimise the effects of any disruption. We are also developing a CoCP (a draft 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 controlled to minimise any likely significant effects on the road network including access to the local area, as well as setting out construction traffic routes, site access/egress points, signage and monitoring procedures. As part of our PEIR (volume13 , section 12) we assessed the likely significant construction transport effects of the proposed development on pedestrian and cycle routes; bus and other public transport routes; patronage; parking; and highway layout, operation and capacity. As part of the assessment we have considered the likely significant effects of lorry and (where applicable) barge transport including likely significant effects of construction traffic on Carnwath Road and Wandsworth Bridge Road based on a methodology that has been discussed and agreed with LBHF and TfL. The PEIR was available as part of our phase two consultation. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment; we are preparing a full Transport assessment for submission with our DCO application. The Transport assessment will consider the cumulative effects of our works with other strategic developments in the local area.
Outcome
10.5.313 Construction traffic will exacerbate existing See annex C of this report traffic congestion along Carnwath Road, Wandsworth Bridge Road, New Kings Road, Kings Road, Townmead Road, Broomhouse Lane, Peterborough Road, Imperial Wharf and Wandsworth, Battersea and Putney Bridges. 10.5.314 Construction traffic will affect access to the local area including access to Sainsbury's/PC World and Wandsworth Bridge Road, Townmead Road and all other cut through roads. 13365LO, 9131LO, 9495LO, 13363, 7164, 7342, 7470, 7478, 7482, 7567, 7678, 7881, 8109, 8142, 8210, 8288, 8302, 8327, 8404, 8451, 8537, 8678, 8681, 9201, 9377, 9428, 9466
354
27
10-87
Ref
Respondent ID LC, 7676, 8884 13397LO, 11381, 11383, 11501, 11752, 12014, 12026, 12147, 12236, 12342, 12561, 7104, 7117, 7220, 7235, 7276, 7343, 7432, 7499, 7541, 7545, 7549, 7639, 7671, 7673, 7697, 7809, 7820, 7865, 7933, 7972, 8210, 8215, 8543, 8550, 8636, 8774, 8820, 9443
No. 3 39
Our response We believe that the proposed access route as set out in the Carnwath Road Riverside site information paper is suitable for construction traffic, subject to some minor modifications to the junction of Carnwath Road and Wandsworth Bridge Road. The site has good access to the TfL road network, particularly to the south of Wandsworth Bridge. We do not envisage that construction traffic will cause any damage to local roads as, where possible, we will use the major road network which is designed and built to handle this type of traffic. We would monitor any effects on other roads used by our construction vehicles to ensure that any damage that is directly attributable to the project is quickly repaired. Measures that may be required to restore any damage roads to their existing condition is set out in our draft CoCP that was published at phase two consultation. The site has good access to the major road network which is designed and built to handle this type of traffic. We have carefully considered the options for access to the site and believe that the proposed access is suitable, especially as similar types of vehicles already visit the existing industrial estate. If necessary we would remove the traffic calming measures on Carnwath Road during the construction works. At this site we also propose to use barges to transport the majority of excavated materials from the shaft and tunnel. This is expected to reduce the number of lorry visits to/from this site by approximately 60 per cent. Preliminary design has been undertaken for the range of vehicles that would use the access to ensure that the proposed project complies with all required design and safety standards. Our transport assessment will inform the nature of off-site junction improvements required before our work starts. Where these are necessary, such as improvements to the junction of Carnwath Road and Wandsworth Bridge Road, we would carry out these improvements as early works in our construction programme. Based on our current proposals for this site, we do not believe that it would be necessary to relocate any bus stops. The likely significant effects of construction traffic on bus routes and patronage will be discussed with TfL and assessed by our Transport assessment which will be submitted with our DCO application. Some on-street car parking on Carnwath Road will be temporarily lost during construction. We are currently considering possible alternative locations for replacement on-street parking and will work closely with LBHF to review
Outcome N N
10.5.315 Construction traffic will cause road damage to Wandsworth Bridge. 10.5.316 Local roads are unsuitable for use by construction vehicles: - the site is some distance from the TfL road network
- Peterborough and Broomhouse are width
N N N
restricted
- Wandsworth Bridge Road is restricted to
emergency only
- junction improvements needed to
Carnwath Road.
10.5.317 Proposed site access is unsuitable because Carnwath Rd is a narrow traffic calmed (bumps) road. 10.5.318 Proposed site access is dangerous as it does not provide an adequate safe turning circle for movements on to the bridge. 10.5.319 Alternative site access is required.
13397LO, 12418, 7178, 7499, 7505, 7507, 7532, 7544, 7865, 8874, 9461 LBHF, 7235, 8215, LR9418
11
8030
10.5.320 Effect of proposed access route to the site on local bus services (eg 424) and location of bus stops.
GLA, 12582, 13363, 7809, 7877, 7920, 8037, 8537, 8906
10.5.321 Proposed access route to the site will result in the loss of on-street car parking. 10.5.322 Lack of alternative car parking facilities in the local area to replace spaces that will be
See annex C of this report 7364
1,830 1
N N
10-88
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns lost or relocated during construction.
Respondent ID 9495LO, 13363, 7751, 9253
No. 4
Our response options and notify any affected parties.
Outcome N
10.5.323 Loss of car parking will affect accessibility to the local area and increase parking pressure, for example members using HYC jetty at Broomhouse Lane. 10.5.324 Effect of construction traffic on road safety, including number of existing accidents on Wandsworth Bridge Road. A risk assessment is needed. 10.5.325 Effect of construction traffic on the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, children and local residents.
GLA, 8082LO, 11792, 13066, 13363, 7472, 7491, 8103, 8215, 8884
10
GLA, LBHF, 9495LO, 9131LO, 9392LO, 13363, 7117, 7343, 7345, 7474, 7476, 7491, 7512, 7521, 7556, 7686, 7687, 7701, 7752, 7753, 7759, 7764, 7765, 7766, 7783, 7894, 7958, 8030, 8111, 8113, 8117, 8121, 8192, 8215, 8312, 8327, 8691, 8724, 8884, 8898, 9089, LR13441, LR9418 8082LO, 7117, 7396, 7438, 7478, 7500, 7521, 7556, 7702, 7738, 7753, 7759, 7764, 7765, 7766, 7783, 8026, 8075, 8103, 8325, 8691, 8867, 8898, 9089
43
10.5.326 Effect of construction traffic on safe access to schools and road safety for local school children.
24
We will design all site accesses and operate all of our construction sites to ensure that they meet all design, health and safety standards. We are developing a CoCP (a draft of which was provided as part of our phase two consultation), which will include a Traffic management plan to ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled to minimise any likely significant effects on the road network including access to the local area, as well as setting out construction traffic routes, site access/egress points, signage and monitoring procedures. There will be a requirement to ensure the proposals do not endanger safe school access. The transport assessment will also review data relating to recent accidents. However, it is inherently difficult to predict future accident rates with any certainty, particularly within an urban area, as they are influenced not only by the physical layout of the highway but also other factors such as the behaviour of all road users and prevailing weather conditions. The proposals will be subject to independent external review by TfL and the local highway authority to ensure proposed highway layouts and vehicle movement arrangements are as safe as possible.
10.5.327 Effect of transporting materials by barge on river navigation and commercial river users, including the use of the wharf for travel 10.5.328 Effect of navigation restrictions on the River Thames on the size of barges that can be used to transport materials. 10.5.329 Effect of works and barge movements on river navigation and leisure river users, eg, Hurlingham Sailing Club.
7371, 9073
8215, 8774, 9461
8807LO, 9392LO, 7121, 7757, 8117
We have discussed the use of the river for transporting C materials with the PLA, the body responsible for regulating the use of the River Thames in London. We will be undertaking a navigational risk assessment, the findings of C which will be reported in our DCO application and will inform further discussions with the PLA. We are currently considering options to increase the use of C the river for transportation of materials during construction. This could include constructing a jetty rather than a campshed at this site. As part of this work we will continue to discuss our proposals with other river users and relevant authorities. As set out in our Transport project information paper, we are determining where our materials will come from and go to, in order to select the most sustainable and cost-effective transport routes and modes. This includes consideration of rail, road and river transport. Our Transport strategy will set out the best transport solution for the site taking into account a number of factors, including cost. At this stage we believe that our commitment to transporting some 90 per cent of the N N
10.5.330 Using the river to transport materials is not cost-effective. 10.5.331 The cost of transporting materials by river will be prohibitive.
7180, 8537, 9461 7865
3 1
10-89
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response excavated material by river barge is the most cost-effective solution for this site.
Outcome
10.5.332 The site is not suitable to enable the river to be used to transport materials; can only happen in a small window of time twice a day when the tide is right. 10.5.333 Physical site constraints including tidal patterns will limit the potential to transport materials by barge, only usable at high tide.
7567, 8215
We believe that this site is suitable for transporting materials N by river. Part of the site, Hurlingham Wharf, is a safeguarded wharf and the proposed use is consistent with GLA policy in this regard. Tidal patterns have been taken into account in developing our strategy for moving materials by barge from this site. Based on the studies that have been completed to date, this matter is not considered to constrain the use of barges at this site. Our PEIR (volume 13, section 12), which was provided at phase two consultation, considers the likely significant effect of construction workers travelling to the site on local traffic volumes, parking and on the public transport network. This states that most staff will be required to travel to and from the site by public transport and concludes that this would not have a significant adverse effect. The Transport assessment to be submitted with our DCO application will further assess the likely significant effect of construction worker travel. Additionally, our draft CoCP, which was published as part of our phase two consultation, confirms that a Traffic management plan will be developed for this site that would ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled to minimise any likely significant effects on the road network including access to the local area, as well as setting out construction traffic routes, site access/egress points, signage and monitoring procedures. The proposed working hours for the site are set out in the site information paper and draft CoCP and these working hours would also apply to traffic coming to and from the site. As part of our preliminary transport assessment we have considered the likely significant effects of lorry and where applicable barge transport within these working hours, based on a methodology that has been discussed and agreed with LBHF and TfL. As part of the development of our CoCP we will consider how we can take into account rush hours and school opening and closing times. We carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. The information was based on our preliminary transport N
7499, 9461
10.5.334 Effect of the number of construction workers travelling to and from the site on local traffic volumes and parking.
7110, 7577, 7694, 7898, 9461
10.5.335 Duration of construction works and associated traffic effects.
7478, 7663
10.5.336 Local roads should not be used during rush hour. 10.5.337 Local roads should not be used close to school opening and closing times. 10.5.338 More information is needed on transport effects including: - number of barges needed
- correct traffic figures
9303 7285LO, 7890 LBHF, 13397LO, 9131LO, 9392LO, 12329, 7005, 7346, 7510, 7515, 8094, 8215, 8241, 8482, 8898, 9061, 9461, LR9418
1 2 17
N N C
10-90
Ref

- traffic flow for residents on Carnwath
Respondent ID
No.
Road
- estimate of the general non-HGV arrivals
and departures
- traffic accidents - traffic study examining impact of extra
lorry movements down New Kings Road and Wandsworth Bridge Road, number of transport movements and traffic accidents.
Our response assessment which is still being developed and we will be discussing the details further with TfL and LBHF to ensure that any likely significant transport effects are identified within the Environmental statement to be submitted as part of our DCO application. We are currently considering options to increase the use of the river for transportation of materials during construction. Our DCO application will set out revised details of the number o barges required.
Outcome N N N N
Supportive and neutral comments in relation to measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access Table 10.5.43 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID 7168 No. 1 Our response We welcome your support for the transport mitigation proposals.
10.5.339 Mitigation proposed to address transport issues is satisfactory.
Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access Table 10.5.44 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address the effects of transport and access during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 7544, 8024 7466 9131LO, 9169LO, 7628, 7801, 7876, 7954, 8142, 8329, 8482, 8724, 8725, 8734, 8838 No. 2 1 13 Our response Refer to our response at paragraph 10.3.29 above. At this site we propose to use barges to transport the majority of excavated materials from the shaft and tunnel. This is expected to reduce the number of lorry visits to/from this site by approximately 60 per cent. We are currently considering options to increase the use of the river for transportation of materials during construction. Our works would also include improvements to the junction between Carnwath Road and Wandsworth Bridge Road. Our draft CoCP, which was provided at phase two consultation sets out a range of measures to manage construction traffic and how our contractor would operate the site, including sections on traffic and lorry management and control, road cleanliness, reinstatement of public rights of way, as well as details about our working hours and the way we would manage our workforce. These measures have been taken into account in our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the scheme. As a part of our DCO application we will complete a Transport assessment that would assess the baseline conditions and the potential likely significant effects of the Outcome N N N
10.5.340 Use an alternative site to avoid issues associated with transport and access. 10.5.341 Mitigation proposed does not address the issues. 10.5.342 More information is needed on transport mitigation, including number of lorries, site access logistics, traffic management and what traffic calming measures will be used to ensure that no-one is injured due to the expected increase in construction traffic. 10.5.343 Mitigation proposed to address transport issues is inadequate/insufficient as it fails to provide a solution to congestion or any improvements to the local transport network which will be required: - junction improvements would have minor impact
- traffic management plans can do little to
minimise the significant disruption that the works will cause

- no plans on how to address road safety
7331LO, 8807LO, 9131LO, 9392LO, 9417LO, 9481LO, 13363, 7125, 7129, 7148, 7192, 7201, 7244, 7250, 7345, 7377, 7382, 7408, 7430, 7461, 7469, 7486, 7523, 7671, 7675, 7854, 7865, 7894, 7900, 7932, 7933, 7986, 8075, 8102, 8110, 8211, 8215, 8302, 8313, 8325, 8329, 8537, 8681, 8755, 8785, 8884, 8898, 9461
48
10-91
Ref

- no plans on how to deal with congestion - no plans on how to stop HGV drivers
Respondent ID
No.
using small residential roads as short cuts to get to the site

- serious issue with the junction
Our response project. If the Transport assessment identifies any likely significant effects arising from congestion we would develop mitigation measures to minimise the effects of any disruption.
Outcome N N
improvements necessary at the Carnwath Road/Wandsworth Bridge Road (A217) junction given the quantity of traffic
- failed to propose any improvements to
the local transport network which will be required

- proposed roundabouts are unlikely to
alleviate the existing traffic congestion and construction vehicles will only add to it. 10.5.344 There is no guarantee that the mitigation proposed will be delivered: - it could never be managed properly outside working hours without equally serious disruption to the neighbourhood
- concerned that the majority of the rubble
7112, 7133, 7148, 7424, 7557, 7560, 7986, 8037, 8215, 8457, 8460, 8503, 8742
13
will not be taken by the barge

- sceptical of Thames Water's ability to
optimise vehicle movements. 10.5.345 Restrict or limit working hours when construction and related vehicles can access local roads including: - rush hour and match day restrictions
- Wandsworth Bridge Road during week
If a Development Consent Order (DCO) is granted we would anticipate a series of requirements (similar to planning conditions) that would control the development. We expect that the requirements would secure the provision of the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental Statement that will be submitted with the application and would stipulate that the development must be carried out in accordance with the agreed CoCP. We are currently considering options to increase the use of the river for transportation of materials during construction. Details of the proposed site working hours were set out in our site information paper, with further information in our draft CoCP. Our CoCP that will be submitted with our DCO application will include more detail on site working hours, with any exceptions to be agreed with LBHF.
C N N
7527, 7694, 7786, 8110, 8537
days either in the morning before 10am or in the afternoon after 4pm and match days
- no lorry during peak hours.
N 8482 1 As set out in our Transport project information paper we N would require most construction staff to travel to and from the site by public transport. As part of our Transport assessment that would be submitted with our DCO application we will consider the likely significant effects of our proposed approach and where appropriate provide mitigation such as on-site parking. Our contractor would also be required to agree a transport management plan and a construction travel plan with TfL and LBHF.
10.5.346 Adopt appropriate site management measures to control construction worker parking.
10-92
Ref
Respondent ID 7786, 7876, 8482, 8537
No. 4
Our response
Outcome
10.5.347 Establish traffic management plans eg, a special congestion charge over Wandsworth Bridge. 10.5.348 Establish site travel plans.
8482
Our draft CoCP, which was provided at phase two N consultation, sets out a range of measures to manage construction traffic and how our contractor would operate the site, including sections on traffic and lorry management and N control, road cleanliness, reinstatement of public rights of way, as well as details about our working hours and the way we would manage our workforce. These measures have been taken into account in undertaking our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the project. We are currently preparing an Environmental statement that will identify further mitigation measures if significant adverse effects are identified and are discussing the details of the CoCP and framework travel plan with LBHF. Our contractor would be required to submit a detailed site specific Traffic management plan and Travel Plan to TfL and LBHF for approval prior to commencement of works. We are preparing a Transport assessment that will be submitted as a part of our DCO application. This will include a detailed analysis of potential access routes and an assessment of the likely significant effects of construction traffic on local roads, together with mitigation that is required to minimise disruption resulting from our site traffic. We will work closely with TfL, LBHF, local residents and other interested groups to minimise the likely significant effects of traffic movements to and from the site. N
10.5.349 Complete a transport assessment aligning with recent Sainsbury's approval, including surveying the area over a longer period and traffic modelling, especially on Carnwath road, Wandsworth Bridge Road and the junction.
11039, 11827, 12131, 12707, 12973, 12974, 12976, 12978, 12979, 12982, 12985, 12986, 12987, 12988, 12989, 12990, 12994, 13000, 13004, 13005, 13006, 13007, 13025, 13028, 13031, 13032, 13033, 13034, 13035, 13036, 13037, 13039, 13053, 13056, 13063, 13081, 13082, 13083, 13084, 13085, 13105, 13111, 13112, 13146, 13160, 13179, 13180, 13184, 13192, 13195, 13198, 13200, 13201, 13213, 13230, 7134, 7147, 7148, 7352, 7396, 7491, 7549, 7558, 7976, 8027, 8047, 8215, 8482, 8502, 8652, 9441, 9480SC 9253
72
10.5.350 Undertake fluvial modelling to identify potential effects of river transport and associated structures on river flows; concerns that the pattern of river bed/sediment transport will change during construction and restrict vessel movements at the HYC Broomhouse Lane jetty. 10.5.351 Undertake navigational assessment to identify potential effects of river transport on river users and structures. 10.5.352 Use the river to transport more/all construction materials and spoil: - without a disproportionate increase in cost
- 800 tonne barges can be used below
We are undertaking fluvial modelling and preliminary findings have informed the design of the site. Further modelling will be used to refine the designs where appropriate, and will inform the Environmental statement, which will be part of our DCO application. The modelling studies will also support agreements with owners of third party assets, where relevant. We are preparing a Navigational risk assessment as part of our DCO application, the approach to which is being discussed with the PLA. Preliminary discussions with the PLA have also informed the design of the site. It is our intention to use the river to transport 90 per cent of excavated material from the shaft and tunnel, as detailed in our Carnwath Road Riverside site information paper. However, it is not generally practical and cost-effective to transport all materials by barge so we would still need to
7889, 8537, 9253
LC, GLA, PLA, 11016, 12720, 13012, 13015, 13074, 7110, 7193, 7408, 7510, 7628, 7752, 7753, 7759, 7764, 7765, 7766, 7777, 7809, 7958, 8030, 8042, 8098, 8121, 8289, 8482, 8502, 8580,
37
10-93
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns Putney Bridge

- barge use should not limited by cost or
Respondent ID 8743, 8838, 9303, 9337, 9441, 9442, LR13382
No.
left to contractors to determine; instead barges should be used whenever it is technically feasible. 10.5.353 Use the river rather than road to transport all 7729LO, 7121, 7192, 7201, 7359, 7430, construction materials for example tunnel 7493, 7753, 7762, 7777, 7820, 8098, segments, other very bulky goods, concrete 8113, 8404, 8502, 8535, 8708, 8725 and pre-fabricated linings. 10.5.354 Use rail to transport construction materials and spoil. 7673, 8838 18
Our response transport some materials by road. At this site use of barges would remove approximately 44,000 lorries from the road during the construction. We are currently considering options to increase the use of the river for transportation of materials during construction.
Outcome C
Our proposals include transportation of 90 per cent of the excavated material from the shaft and tunnel by barge. As the site is not close to a railway line, this form of transport is not considered viable at this site. It is not currently part of our proposals to provide a permanent pier or new slipway on completion of our works. This is to ensure the operations of the safeguarded wharf are not affected by our proposals. Environmentally vehicles are not currently a mainstream technology. However, we recognise that the project is not expected to begin for several years and that is will take a number of years to complete. Therefore we will encourage our contractor to investigate the opportunities to utilise environmentally friendly vehicles during construction. Our use of the Hurlingham Wharf is consistent with its designation as a safeguarded wharf and our works will not prejudice its use as a wharf after construction is complete. Our transport assessment will inform the nature of off-site junction improvements required before our work starts. Where necessary, such as improvements to the junction of Carnwath Road and Wandsworth Bridge Road, we would carry out these improvements as early works in our construction programme. Our Environmental statement will assess the cumulative effects in combination with other strategic developments within the area, in line with the methodology that has been agreed. We are preparing a Transport assessment that will be submitted as a part of our DCO application. This will include a detailed analysis of potential access routes and an assessment of the likely significant effects of construction traffic on local roads, together with mitigation that is required to minimise disruption resulting from our site traffic. We will work closely with TfL, LBHF, local residents and other interested groups to minimise the likely significant effects of traffic movements to and from the site.
10.5.355 Provide a new modern pier/slipway as legacy of works for example using Hurlingham Wharf as a "river bus" stop. 10.5.356 Use environmentally friendly vehicles.
8537
8110
10.5.357 Other transport and access mitigation comments including: - existing and consented cargo handling capacity must either be accommodated within the worksite or relocated
- some or possibly all of the road
LC, PLA, LBHF, 12806, 9337, LR9418
improvement recommended for the area to accommodate further development would need to be implemented before the site could be utilized for the construction of a main shaft site
- the construction management plan needs
to take into account the construction traffic of other sites in the SFRRA
- Thames Water needs to do much more
work with boroughs to minimise local disruption and agree site access routes etc.
10-94
Water and flood risk

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to water and flood risk 10.5.358 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to water and flood risk during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk Table 10.5.45 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk issues during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID LBHF, 13363, LR9418 No. 3 Our response Our PEIR (volume 13, section 15) sets out a preliminary assessment of likely significant effects on flood risk (level one) in line with the requirements of national policy and considers flooding from the sea (and tidal sources), rivers, land and surface water runoff, and groundwater. As set out in our PEIR the site is in flood zone 3a where there is a high probability of flood risk. Our modelling to date indicates that neither the temporary nor the operational scheme would affect flood risk. A level two flood risk assessment will be presented in the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application and will identify any appropriate mitigation. As our designs develop we will review the likely significant construction effects on flood risk to determine any requirements for compensation. Outcome N
10.5.359 Effect on flood risk/existing flooding in the borough would not be addressed.
10.5.360 Effect of aquifers (current level of the water level).
9461
At this site, as there would not be any dewatering there N would not be an effect on the aquifer. Our PEIR (volume 13, section 13) sets our preliminary assessment of likely significant effects on groundwater. We are carrying out fluvial assessment of the temporary C foreshore works to establish the likely significant effects of the development on the river, and will discuss the findings N with the PLA and EA. We are also undertaking scour assessment. We do not believe that there will be significant erosion/ scour to the river bed around campsheds, however our design incorporates mitigation measures to manage the temporary effects of our construction on the river. The riverbed would be monitored and remedial works carried out if required. We are currently considering options to increase the use of the river for transportation of materials during construction. This could include constructing a jetty rather than a campshed at this site. As part of this work we will continue to discuss our proposals with other river users. Our draft CoCP (section 8) sets out a range of measures that will be implemented to ensure that our contractor takes all reasonably practicable measures to prevent water pollution events from the construction site. Our contractor would be required to comply with the measures set out in N
10.5.361 Proposals will result in river erosion and localised scour from campsheds. 10.5.362 Effect of construction activities and structures on tidal flow.
EA, 9253 9253
2 1
10.5.363 Possible water pollution.
7388
10-95
Ref
Respondent ID 9523
No. 1
Our response the CoCP. Barge loading will be carefully controlled to avoid spilling material into the river. Whilst we do not anticipate any significant effects at this stage, the river bed will be monitored throughout the construction period and if it is found that the river bed level is changing, corrective action will be taken to ensure that the use of Broomhouse Pier and the Broomhouse Lane public drawdock are not adversely affected by the works. We are currently considering options to increase the use of the river for transportation of materials during construction. This could include constructing a jetty rather than a campshed at this site. However, this will be in discussions with the PLA and EA and will consider how to mitigate any potential additional effects upon the river bed.
Outcome N
10.5.364 Concerns that the pattern of river bed/sediment transport will change during construction. The jetty currently has a very low under keel clearance and this may be worsened due to the works. Removal of excavated material by barge is likely to result in deposition of additional materials into the river due to barge loading activities. The volume of this material may considerable given the duration of tunnelling works. There was concern that this additional material will raise bed levels either at Broomhouse Pier or the adjacent Broomhouse Lane public draw dock.
Supportive and neutral comments in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk 10.5.365 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to address key issues Table 10.5.46 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID EA No. 1 Our response We have undertaken a preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the construction and identified appropriate mitigation measures. If, as part of the process of preparing our Environmental statement for submission with our DCO application, the need for additional mitigation is identified we will propose further measures. This may include scour protection measures including riprap if necessary. We would seek to limit the extent of these protective measures to minimise impacts upon the foreshore. We are carrying out fluvial and scour assessment of the temporary foreshore works to establish the likely significant effects of the development on the river, and will discuss the findings with the PLA and EA. Outcome N
10.5.366 Mitigation proposed to address the issues is inadequate/insufficient and placement of riprap or gabions should be avoided due to further encroachment on foreshore. 10.5.367 More information is needed on mitigation including monitoring proposed for any changes in the river flow and hence the potential for scour related to barge movements.
9253
10.5.368 Other water mitigation, including: reducing the causes of scour or strengthening the existing defences themselves. Where this cannot be done, justification needs to be provided and encroachment caused by these strengthening options needs to be mitigated and compensated for.
EA, 9253
Your comments are noted. The temporary works have been N designed in such a way as to minimise scour. Where significant scour is predicted, we will carry out preventative measures (such as placing riprap on the river bed), and in all locations the riverbed will be monitored and remedial works carried out if required. Riprap presents a change in habitat rather than a loss of habitat. Recommended water mitigation measures will be provided as part of our Environmental statement which will be submitted with the application.
10-96
10.6
10.6.1 10.6.2
Permanent design and appearance

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 Carnwath Road Riverside that are required for the operation of the tunnel when it is in use (the operational phase). 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 of Carnwath Road Riverside (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 of question 5 asked respondents to select whether they agree, disagree or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in the table below. Table 10.6.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right issues that have influenced our permanent design for this site? (Q5) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 1 11 425 0 437
92 224 121 1 1 - LBHF 6 217
Yes
No
Dont know/ unsure
4
117
91
10.6.3
As part of the phase two consultation, respondents were also asked to comment on proposals for the permanent design and appearance of Carnwath Road Riverside (please see question 6 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 dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in the table below. Table 10.6.2 Please give us your views about our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site (Q6) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 1 10 433 0 444 65 293 86 1 64 1 - LBHF 8 284 1 85 Supportive Opposed Dont know/ unsure
10.6.4
The following sections set out the comments received from respondents in connection with proposals for the permanent design and appearance of Carnwath Road Riverside. It should be noted, that not all respondents who provided feedback comments provided feedback to the first part of questions 5 and 6. Comments are organised under the following sub-headings: Supportive and neutral feedback comments Objections, issues and concerns Design suggestions.
10-97
10.6.5
Where respondents commented on matters arising during the operational phase and the management of these effects (whether through design or by other means), the comments are reported in Section 10.7. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Table 10.6.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Ref 10.6.6 10.6.7 10.6.8 10.6.9 10.6.10 10.6.11 10.6.12 Supportive and neutral comments The design/proposals are OK/fine/acceptable. The design/proposals are good. The proposals will enhance the local area/provide some public benefit. Proposals are an improvement on the existing situation. Proposals will create a new area of public/open space. The proposals will leave something positive for the future (legacy). Support the location/layout of permanent facilities on the site. Respondent ID 7129, 7250, 7876, 7889, 8327, 8404, 8727, 8891 7404, 7762, 7938, 8028, 8124, 8241, 8280 8584, 8619, 8696, 9408 7905, 7938, 8728, 8895 8124 8895 11014, 11026, 11053, 11062, 11107, 11112, 11273, 11352, 11501, 11554, 11555, 11565, 11573, 11675, 11700, 11734, 11757, 11760, 11874, 11888, 11989, 12012, 12025, 12189, 12196, 12291, 12299, 12573, 12705, 12720, 12726, 12729, 12742, 12762, 12777, 12783, 12899, 12950, 13012, 13084, 13090, 13113, 13116, 13117, 13214, 13217, 7403, 7997, 8118 7567 (LR)CABE, 7905 No. 8 7 4 4 1 1 49 Our response Your comments are noted and welcomed.
10.6.13 10.6.14
Like the landscaping proposals. Support proposals because: - it will improve access to the river and Thames Path - they respond in a considered way to the challenges of the site, presenting an opportunity for Thames Water to create a new riverside space for future communities to enjoy - support the notion of a detached ventilation column that will be visible from the river, allowing the odour control building to act as a background building at the northern end of a landscaped public space - arrangement of the proposed planting, which will allow users to cross the space
1 2
10-98
Ref
Supportive and neutral comments diagonally - support the intention to create a wellarticulated building envelope that allows glimpses of the operations within from the street. The design enables the site to be used for other purposes once works associated with the Thames Tunnel project are complete. The size and/or height of the permanent buildings and structures is acceptable. Any work that is to be carried out should leave the site in the same/better condition when work is finished. Other qualified support: support finished proposals but not on the Carnwath Road Riverside site as it is highly residential. Elsewhere, the opportunity may arise where re-landscaping could blend it within the site after completion of works. Support for specific design feature: nature design. Proposals look good, but architect's impressions do not necessarily reflect reality.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response
10.6.15
(LR)CABE
10.6.16 10.6.17
8124 12012
1 1
10.6.18
7702
10.6.19 10.6.20
8460 7239
1 1 In the Carnwath Road Riverside site information paper we used a combination of photomontages and plans to illustrate how the completed scheme could look once complete. We need to develop our final proposals in response to the findings of the consultation, which means that the designs may change. Following the submission of the application, there may be some details that would be subject to requirements (conditions) that would require us to submit further information to LBHF for approval, such as materials and landscaping. The exact details would be agreed with LBHF at the time of construction to take account of current requirements. Your comments are noted.
10.6.21 10.6.22
Design proposals are OK, but object to the site selection /location. Other supportive comments: - agree that Thames Water is trying to be ecologically responsible - you have to do what is necessary for the benefit of all concerned.
7553 7342, 7404
1 2
10-99
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Table 10.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Ref 10.6.23 10.6.24 Objections, issues and concerns Do not support the proposals for the permanent layout and design of the site. Proposals are unattractive/ugly. Respondent ID 7342, 8681 8807LO, 11059, 7121, 7192, 7236, 7338, 7341, 7343, 7391, 7408, 7462, 7469, 7499, 7515, 7523, 7526, 7549, 7558, 7671, 7691, 7692, 7693, 7698, 7705, 7730, 7833, 7839, 7881, 7913, 7914, 7986, 8008, 8021, 8085, 8110, 8111, 8209, 8211, 8451, 8457, 8503, 8537, 8542, 8648, 8678, 8724, 8725, 8749, 8755, 8884, 8888, 8926, 9377 13397LO, 7462, 8110 12302, 7127, 7137, 7241, 7394, 7412, 7480, 7523, 7545, 7558, 7675, 7728, 7968, 7986, 8111, 8117, 8457, 8749, 8785 7241 No. 2 53 Our response We note your comments on the design of our proposed scheme. The design follows our scheme-wide principles and takes into account comments made at phase one consultation, on-going discussions with consultees and our design review with CABE. Our Design development report available as part of our phase two consultation sets out the principles that have informed our design in more detail. We are continuing to develop our design proposals for this site in light of feedback to phase two consultation and to complement the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Outcome C C
10.6.25 10.6.26
Proposals are unimaginative/bland/sanitised. The proposals will create an eyesore/are a monstrosity. Materials proposed are low quality/cheap in appearance.
3 19
C C
10.6.27
The quality of the appearance, design and finish materials of the permanent structures reflect the site's location within the Sands End Conservation Area and the requirements of UDP policies EN2 and EN21, which require a high quality design and finish. Your comments are noted. We are currently considering the layout of our permanent facilities at this site.
10.6.28 10.6.29
Further consideration should be given to permanent site design and layout. Making the site 'look nice' will not reduce or compensate for its effects in respect of odour and pollution; or loss of the currently proposed regeneration.
7462, 7777, 8648, 8722 7364, 7466, 7671, 7776, 8313, 8457, 8749, 8888
4 8
Your comments are noted. Our permanent site design N includes a comprehensive air management strategy to ensure that the effect on air quality is within acceptable limits and locates the development to enable surrounding sites to be redeveloped, in line with emerging regeneration plans for the area. Your comments are noted. The images in the site information paper provided illustrations of the permanent design, with further details set out in the Design development report. The drawings show the location of housing around the site. As detailed in the Carnwath Road Riverside site information paper, our proposals will include new tree planting and landscaping on the site once the construction works are complete. It is not practical to undertake the planting during the construction phase. We are continuing to develop our design proposals for this site in light of phase two consultation and to provide further N
10.6.30
Images and information in the site information papers are unrealistic/ misleading/incorrect because they do not portray the associated effects. This is where lots of people live, so these houses should have been shown in the drawing as well. Landscaping and planting will take a long time to mature and become effective/restoration of the site will take a long time. There is insufficient landscaping and planting/landscaping and planting proposals
13397LO, 12012, 7217, 7523, 7786, 7869, 9382
10.6.31
7285LO, 7364, 7894
10.6.32
7107, 7558, 7701, 8110, 8689
10-100
Ref 10.6.33
Objections, issues and concerns are unsatisfactory. Proposals are not in keeping with/do not enhance and/or will have a negative effect on the character or appearance of the local area. Effect on the image of the local area. Design will create opportunities for crime and anti-social behaviour.
Respondent ID 7112, 7121, 7142, 7236, 7276, 7391, 7693, 7839, 7856, 7900, 7932, 7949, 7986, 8110, 8117, 8413, 8414, 8648, 8652, 8678, 8749 7112 7914
No. 21
Our response areas of planting. Your comments are noted and will be taken into consideration in developing our designs for this site. We believe that the proposed development at this site will positively contribute to the riverfront through the creation of a new public open space adjacent to the river. Your comments are noted. We do not believe that our proposals will create new opportunities for crime and antisocial behaviour and note that we have incorporated secure by design principles in our scheme. The site is allocated for housing and employment uses within the wider South Fulham Riverside Regeneration Area in LBHFs adopted Core Strategy. While the use of this site during construction of the tunnel will prevent it from redevelopment in the short term, much of the site can be redeveloped in line with its allocation upon completion of our works. We have designed the permanent layout and design of the site to minimise the amount of land that is needed permanently, allowing as much of the site as possible to be redeveloped. Our proposals for the permanent layout and design of the site will also bring long-term benefits to the local area, including the creation of a new public open space with tree planting and landscaping, possible road junction improvements and an extension to the Thames Path pedestrian walkway. In addition, we will be utilising an existing vacant safeguarded wharf for its designated use and leaving the site in an improved condition for future operators.
Outcome C
10.6.34 10.6.35
1 1
C N N
10.6.36
Design proposals are not compatible with regeneration plans, design briefs, planning policies or proposals for the local area. Site is more suitable/should be developed for other uses such as residential or for tourism.
7121, 7476, 7502, 7892, 7894, 7913, 7931, 7954, 8106, 8413, 8457, 8537, 8652, 8755, 8838, 9474 7117, 8021, 8091, 8684
16
10.6.37
10.6.38
Effect of permanent design and layout on local views.
7236, 7561, 8503, 8537, 8874, 9303
A preliminary assessment of townscape and visual likely N significant effects has been undertaken and is presented in the PEIR (volume 13, section 11). The assessment concluded that the operational site would have beneficial effects on the character of the site and surrounding area and on views towards the site. Our approach to design has sought to preserve and enhance the character of the site and surrounding area. We have employed a process of iterative design and assessment. Our commitment to good design, coupled with the creation of a relatively large area of new public realm along the riverside, would lead to likely beneficial effects on the character of the local area. An assessment of likely significant effects of the final design on townscape character and views will be presented in our Environmental Statement, which will form part of our DCO application. Our PEIR (volume 13, section 12) sets out a preliminary assessment of the transport likely significant effects of the N
10.6.39
Design proposals will increase congestion in the surrounding area.
7121
10-101
Ref 10.6.40
Objections, issues and concerns Design proposals will result in congestion in the surrounding area.
Respondent ID 7417
No. 1
Our response operational phase of the development. A full Transport assessment is being prepared for submission as part of our DCO application. As set out in our site information paper vehicles required for site maintenance would normally comprise of a small van every three to six months. Periodically (approximately every ten 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 low number of vehicles involved there is not considered to be a traffic effect. Your comments are noted. Refer to paragraph 10.5.72 above for our response to feedback on the duration of our construction phase. Your comments are noted and we are considering how the permanent structures at this site might change from the proposals set out at phase two consultation. It should be noted that the structures associated with ventilation of the tunnel are informed by a number of functional requirements which means that there are physical limits as to how small we can make our structures to ensure they are fit for purpose. Prior to our phase two consultation we discussed our approach to design for this site with the Design Council CABE which identified in their written comments that the ventilation structures should be treated as a piece of engineering architecture to be celebrated and which supports the creation of a new riverside space and which can be located close to future development blocks (not related to the tunnel), as detailed in the Design development report provided at phase two consultation. Accordingly we have sought to make the visual appearance of the ventilation columns celebrate the nature of the Thames Tunnel project while meeting functional engineering requirements, in accordance with the design principles set out in the Design project information paper within our phase two consultation material. The Site selection background technical paper, which accompanies the Site selection methodology paper, specifies the site sizes for CSO and main tunnel site. We have used this criterion for selecting our preferred sites. Carnwath Road Riverside is therefore an appropriate size to accommodate our proposals. Your comments are noted. We have sought to locate the ventilation column so it is as far from homes as possible,
Outcome N
10.6.41
More concerned about the duration of the construction phase and associated disturbance and visual effects rather than the finished design. The permanent buildings and structures are too large/ tall. The ventilation column(s) are too high/big, why is this needed if there will be no smell?
7847, 7894
10.6.42 10.6.43
7121, 7147, 7216, 7522, 7691, 7968, 8094, 8209, 8681, 9073 13397LO, 11767, 7121, 7232, 7269, 7389, 7520, 7522, 7537, 7677, 7691, 7705, 7949, 8008, 8094, 8199, 8211, 9474, LR9118
10 19
C N
10.6.44
The site is too small to accommodate the proposals.
7692, 7698
10.6.45
The permanent buildings and structures are located too close to residential properties/should not be located in
13397LO, 9392LO, 7377, 7412, 7495, 7518, 7523, 7526, 7569, 7576, 7639, 7654, 7663, 7675, 7691, 7692, 7698,
24
10-102
Ref 10.6.46 10.6.47
Objections, issues and concerns residential or built up areas. Do not support the location/layout of permanent facilities on the site. Design proposals will affect terrestrial ecology.
Respondent ID 7699, 7922, 8106, 8656, 8865, 8884, 9474 See annex C of this report 7502
No. 2,099 1
Our response taking account of the functional requirements. We are currently considering the layout of our permanent facilities at this site.
Outcome C
The site is not fully occupied with limited plants and N ecological value. Our proposals would incorporate measures such as planting of trees and a biodiverse roof to encourage biodiversity at the site. Once our works are complete we do not anticipate any disruption to the use of the Thames Path, although as detailed in our site information paper it is acknowledged that there will be short period approximately every ten years when a diversion may be required to allow inspection and maintenance works. We would discuss the timing of the inspection/maintenance and any diversion with LBHF and ensure that appropriate signage is provided. We believe the final design of the site will not have a negative effect on local recreation and leisure. Our current proposal is to landscape the area around the shaft in order to create a positive aspect of potential and flexible public realm within this riverside location, providing an amenity to existing and future residents. Our permanent proposals seek to open up the site and to provide a landscaped area adjacent to the river to enhance the local area. We hope that this will be become an important and well-used area of public realm for residents, workers and tourists. Landowners may have a statutory entitlement to claim compensation for the diminution on the value of their property due to the operation of the project. N
10.6.48
Effect of the permanent site layout and design on the use and/or alignment of the existing Thames Path.
8898
10.6.49
The permanent design and layout of the site will affect local recreation and leisure.
7914
10.6.50
The permanent design and layout of the site will affect local tourism and business.
13397LO, 7482, 7699
10.6.51
The permanent design and layout of the site will affect property prices and the ability to sell property. Provide appropriate compensation for negative effects on the local area. Effect of permanent design and layout on residential amenity and quality of life.
7137
10.6.52 10.6.53
12834 7121, 7232, 7377, 7417, 7478, 7523, 7752
1 7
N We believe the final design of the site will not have a N negative effect on residential amenity or quality of life. Our current proposal is to landscape the area around the shaft in order to create a potential and flexible public realm at this riverside location, providing an amenity to existing and future residents. Our PEIR (volume 13) provides a preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the proposals on a range of topics, including noise and vibration, air quality (including dust emissions), odour, and transport, based on a methodology that has been agreed with LBHF. A full assessment will be provided with the Environmental Statement that is submitted with our DCO application. N
10.6.54
The aesthetics and appearance of the proposals are less important than the issues associated with the tunnels operation pollution, smell, general deterioration of neighbourhood and the effects on local children and schools.
7031, 7168, 7173, 7364
10-103
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response We are also preparing a Health impact assessment that will examine the likely significant effects of the proposed development on human mental and physical health and wellbeing and possible effects within the population. The findings of this study will inform the design for this site as well as mitigation measures to address any significant effects. Your comments are noted, we have included a number of measures in our proposals for this site to deliver sustainability measures, such as the incorporation of biodiverse roof. Your comments are noted and will be taken into consideration in developing our proposals for this site. Your comments are noted. We note that we have sought to make the visual appearance of the ventilation columns interesting while meeting functional requirements. The proposals seek to balance cost with a range of other factors, including operational requirements and delivering a scheme that will enhance and add to the local area. We do not consider that our proposals are too expensive or costly. We are developing our proposals for maintenance of the site and will discuss these with LBHF.
Outcome
10.6.55
Design proposals appear to be unsustainable/are not environmentally friendly. The scale of the permanent buildings and structures is out of keeping with existing buildings in the surrounding area. Design will have a negative effect on the character and setting of the riverside/river frontage, particularly the 50 foot high ventilation structure. Designs will be expensive/are too costly.
7865, 7977
10.6.56
7216
10.6.57
11059, 7276, 7498, 7520, 7537, 7677, 8085
10.6.58
7364, 7968
10.6.59
Concerned about the on-going maintenance 7673, 7680, 7777, 8211 of the site the partially open ground storey will attract rubbish and the steel columns will soon rust and look neglected. Who will maintain the site? Who will look after the plants/trees, clean up dead leaves in autumn? Need more information on design proposals: - what does the blue fence surround? - what is the blank area to the east of the site to be used for? - unclear what the 'sanded' area will be - not clear enough how it will look - proposals too vague - what do you plan/suppose will be "future developments by others". Who are the others? - will campsheds be left once the works are complete? - no justification for the scale of the 12012, 13162, 7107, 7228, 7382, 7507, 7510, 7522, 7571, 7631, 7700, 7786, 7848, 8075, 8210, 8543, 8681, 8722, 8736, 9089, 9253, 9337
10.6.60
22
As detailed in our site information paper the area surrounded by the blue fence/sanded area is part of Whiffin Wharf which would be developed by others. The 'blank' area to the east is the remaining site of Hurlingham Wharf and Carnwath Road Industrial Estate. These sites would be developed by others. Illustrative plans were provided as a part of the Book of plans as part of the phase two consultation. The future development of the site by others will be determined by LBHF and planning policy for this site is currently being prepared. We will consider whether the campsheds could be left once the works are complete. As stated in section 10.5 above we are considering whether it would be more appropriate to construct a jetty rather than a campshed at this site. We are currently considering our permanent design proposals for
N N N N N N
C C
10-104
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns building.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response this site, including reducing the scale of the buildings required and potentially removing the ventilation building from this site. Your comments are noted. We have sought to make the visual appearance of the ventilation columns interesting while meeting functional requirements. Our PEIR (volume 13, section 10) sets out a preliminary assessment of the likely significant socio-economic effects of the operational scheme, which concludes that there are not likely to be any significant adverse effects (that is major or moderate) in the operational phase that would require mitigation. A full Environmental Statement would consider the likely significant operational effects based on any new information and present this as a part of our DCO application. Your comments are noted. We have sought to make the visual appearance of the ventilation columns interesting while meeting functional requirements.
Outcome
10.6.61
Visual effect of ventilation columns and other permanent buildings and structures. Proximity of ventilation columns to sensitive receptors including schools.
LBHF, 7389, 7395, 7523, 7548, 7558, 7575, 7701, 7949, 8199, 8211, LR9418 7173, 7377, 7654
12
10.6.62
10.6.63
Design measures to reduce the potential effects of the proposals are unsatisfactory/insufficient. Proposals do not create anything for the future (legacy) or bring any benefit to the local area.
8807LO, 7394, 7673
10.6.64
7117, 7569, 7914, 8313, 8542, 8755
We believe that our proposals for this site will deliver a N legacy for the local area through the provision of a new open space alongside the river. In our site information paper we aimed through a combination of photomontages and plans to illustrate how the completed scheme could look once complete. We need to develop our final proposals in response to the findings of the consultation, which means that the designs may change. If a Development Consent Order (DCO) is granted we would anticipate a series of requirements (similar to planning conditions) that would control the development. We expect that the requirements would secure the provision of the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental Statement that will be submitted with the application. Your comments are noted. N
10.6.65
No guarantee that the eventual design will 7500, 7631, 7922, 8648, 8683 look like the images in the site information papers, particularly as contractors will have their own ideas, impacts only provide so much detail, not clear that this is what will be needed in six or seven years time.
10.6.66
Design proposals cannot compensate for and/or are less important than the loss of or disruption to the site and surrounding area during construction. Types of materials being used in the design need to be reconsidered - too much concrete - consider using pale grey concrete rather than pebbly brown concrete. Negative other comments, including: - area around structures will not be used - building too close to roads for trees to
7129, 7338, 7395, 7438, 7466, 7548, 8287
10.6.67
7267, 8209
Your comments are noted and will inform the further development of our proposals for this site.
10.6.68
7285LO, 7127, 7228, 7422, 7673, 7680, 7851, 7920, 7922, 7958, 7971, 8725, 8898, 9474, LR9118
15
The proposal is to landscape the area around the shaft in C order to create a potential and flexible public realm at this riverside location, providing an amenity to existing and future N
10-105
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns grow - proposals look very industrial - will 15m be sufficient for the ventilation column? - what if the ventilation column malfunctions? - the rest of the site would be sold off for redevelopment.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response residents. This would make use of the permanent shaft hardstanding and provide an area of useable open space for the occupants of any new development on Whiffin Wharf and members of the public. We are currently considering the layout of the site including how the areas of open space within the operational site could be designed. New tree planting is proposed within the site boundary, rather than adjacent to Carnwath Road. The ventilation columns and other structures have been designed to meet functional and health and safety requirements and need to be the size identified to ensure that the tunnel can operate efficiently. We are currently reviewing our proposals for this site, including the location and height of the ventilation column The proposed odour control units will contain activated carbon filters. This is standard technology used worldwide and in the UK, for example the foul sewage pumping station for the Olympic Park in Stratford has just installed this type of odour control system. Refer to our response at paragraph 10.7.68 for details how redundancies have been built into our proposed project. The site is allocated for housing and employment uses within the wider South Fulham Riverside Regeneration Area in LBHF's adopted Core Strategy. While the use of this site during construction of the tunnel will prevent it from redevelopment in the short term, much of the site can be redeveloped in line with its allocation upon completion of our works. Your comments are noted. Refer to our response at paragraph 10.3.29 above.
Outcome N C N N
10.6.69
Opposed to/not commenting on the design because the wrong site has been selected.
8843LO, 9089, 9392LO, 7125, 7148, 7201, 7364, 7427, 7428, 7430, 7440, 7461, 7464, 7472, 7478, 7483, 7485, 7486, 7491, 7513, 7527, 7633, 7657, 7663, 7674, 7751, 7763, 7972, 8047, 8075, 8082LO, 8192, 8313, 8404, 8505, 8543, 8656, 8727, 8734, 8749, 8785, 9089, LR13474 9110LO, 7050, 7192, 7741, 7847
42
10.6.70
Opposed to/not commenting on the design because object to the project in principal.
Your comments are noted. Refer to our response at paragraph 2.2.32.
Design suggestions
Table 10.6.5 Design suggestions and improvements Ref 10.6.71 10.6.72 Design suggestions Design should incorporate tree planting. Design should provide suitable/more/ adequate landscaping and planting. Respondent ID 7228, 9423 7325, 7469, 7801, 7971, 9337, 9423 No. 2 6 Our response We are considering your comments to see whether it is possible to include more planting as part of the scheme. Outcome C C
10-106
Ref 10.6.73
Design suggestions Improve the Thames Path as part of the proposals.
Respondent ID 7628, 8113
No. 2
Our response We will investigate an extension to the Thames Path along the Whiffin Wharf frontage and reinstatement of the Thames Path along the existing Carnwath Road Industrial Estate site, which would be a positive legacy benefit to the community from the scheme. Your comments are noted and will be taken into consideration in developing our proposals for this site and how our proposals for provision of open space as part of the project will provide public benefit.
Outcome C
10.6.74 10.6.75
The proposals should provide some public benefit. Proposals should incorporate public/open/green space; would prefer to see an extension to Hurlingham Park. Proposals should enhance the local area. Proposals should be in keeping with and blend into the character of the local area/minimise visual impact, including traditional design and vent column.
7557, 7628, 7971 7284, 7325, 7557, 7628, 7892, 7971, 9382
3 7
C C
10.6.76 10.6.77
7284, 9337, 9382, 9423 7431, 7801, 8460, 9303, 9337
4 5 We note your comments on the design of our proposed scheme. The design follows our scheme-wide principles and takes into account comments made at phase one consultation, on-going discussions with consultees and our design review with CABE. Our Design development report available as part of our phase two consultation sets out the principles that have informed our design in more detail. We are continuing to develop our design proposals for this site in light of feedback to phase two consultation and to complement the character and appearance of the surrounding area. We are currently considering our design proposals for the site and will consider how we can take your comments into consideration.
C C
10.6.78 10.6.79 10.6.80 10.6.81
Ventilation columns, buildings and other structures should be underground/hidden. Reduce the height/size of the ventilation column(s). Reduce the height of permanent buildings and structures. Design should allow the site to be used for other purposes once works associated with the Thames Tunnel project are complete, so should reduce visual impact of the vent.
8042 9337 9337 7777
1 1 1 1
C C C
The site is allocated for housing and employment uses within the wider South Fulham Riverside Regeneration Area in LBHF's adopted Core Strategy. While the use of this site during construction of the tunnel will prevent it from redevelopment in the short term, much of the site can be redeveloped in line with its allocation upon completion of our works. We have designed the permanent layout and design of the site to minimise the amount of land that is needed permanently, allowing as much of the site as possible to be redeveloped. Our proposals for the permanent layout and design of the site will also bring long-term benefits to the local area, including the creation of a new public open space with tree planting and landscaping, possible road junction improvements and an extension to the Thames Path pedestrian walkway. In addition, we will be utilising an existing vacant safeguarded wharf for its designated use
10-107
Ref
Design suggestions
Respondent ID
No.
Our response and leaving the site in an improved condition for future operators. Your comments are noted and will be taken into consideration in developing our proposals for this site.
Outcome
10.6.82 10.6.83 10.6.84
Proposals should use high quality materials and finishes. The final design should be distinctive and of architectural merit/iconic/visually attractive. Design should include recreational facilities including: - a permanent jetty for water taxis - why not give the public (or HYC) a jetty too? - a floating pontoon and walkway.
7431, 7889, 7971, 8537, 9337 7241, 8209 7250, 7557, 7628, 9253
5 2 4
C N
Our proposals do not make provision for the recreational facilities identified in feedback. However, this would not preclude their development in the future by others.
N N 7557, 7628 2 Your comments are noted and will be taken into consideration in developing our proposals for this site. Your comments are noted and will be taken into consideration in developing our proposals for this site. In respect of the comment about cutting off sheet piles, this is not considered to be a technically viable solution for this project. N
10.6.85
Design should include improved children's playground facilities. Specific design amendments included: - the site between the existing housing and the western side of the shaft access will be left like an island and presumably would be of little worth as a future development site. Either the vent needs to be in the middle of the entire site proposed to be used, thereby leaving two decent future development sites either side of it, or to one side so as to maximize the area of a single future redevelopment site - the walls should be clad in brickwork - the building should be rotated 90 degrees to minimise the impact and open up the green areas to allow them to be seen from the road - why not consider what was done with the LU vent shaft at the front right side of Charing Cross Station which was a visual eyesore for several years but was then incorporated into the subsequent office development on that site and now cannot be seen - cut off temporary sheet piles at 1m below bed level, and remove all new concrete, to allow the foreshore to re-establish itself
10.6.86
GLA, (LR)CABE, EA, 7499, 7673, 7777, 8537, 9423, 9461, LR9491
10
C C
10-108
Ref
Design suggestions - the design and location of the permanent structures should be agreed with LBHF but should act as a buffer between residential development to the west of the site and the safeguarded wharf; an improved Thames Path and public realm should be re-instated with a suitable diversion inland to Carnwath Road around the safeguarded wharf - contemporary fountains (flush with floor level) that could be turned off when vehicles are visiting - attractive railings, nautical boards and metal statues - relocate to another site - Estuary Edges guidance should inform any new flood defence or river wall designs - advantage should be taken of the full extent of the public space for community use to realise its maximum value as a neighbourhood asset - consider whether street curbs are necessary, accounting for the frequency of vehicle access for maintenance.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response
Outcome C
C N C
10.6.87
Designs should be environmentally friendly/sustainable.
7839, LR9491
We agree that our development should be environmentally friendly and we have incorporated a biodiverse roof on the flat area of the ventilation building roof to encourage biodiversity. The site is allocated for housing and employment uses within the wider South Fulham Riverside Regeneration Area in LBHF's adopted Core Strategy. While the use of this site during construction of the tunnel will prevent it from redevelopment in the short term, much of the site can be redeveloped in line with its allocation upon completion of our works. We have designed the permanent layout and design of the site to minimise the amount of land that is needed permanently, allowing as much of the site as possible to be redeveloped. Our proposals for the permanent layout and design of the site will also bring long-term benefits to the local area, including the creation of a new public open space by means of tree planting and landscaping, possible road junction improvements and an extension to the Thames Path pedestrian walkway. In addition, we will be utilising an existing vacant safeguarded wharf for its designated use
10.6.88
Other design mitigation suggestions including: - safeguard site from future development - some indication has been given to the after use of construction sites, these aspects should be kept under review to reflect needs and opportunities as they appear on completion of works, which in some cases will be ten years from now - retain campsheds post construction to promote future use of Hurlingham Wharf (acknowledging that the level would have to be raised to the adjacent level).
GLA, 7971, 9253
10-109
Ref
Design suggestions
Respondent ID
No.
Our response and leaving the site in an improved condition for future operators. Our proposed locations for the shaft and its access covers, ventilation building and column on Whiffin Wharf are considered to enable Hurlingham Wharf to be used as a functioning wharf in during the operational phase of the works. We will consider whether the campsheds could be left once the works are complete. As stated in section 10.5 above we are considering whether it would be more appropriate to construct a jetty rather than a campshed at this site. The purpose of consultation is to explore as fully as possible what those with an interest in the project think about our proposals. We will have regard to comments received from both technical and non-technical consultees.
Outcome
10.6.89
Not qualified to comment on this technical matter.
7012, 7016
10.7
10.7.1 10.7.2
Management of operational effects

This section sets out feedback comments received during the phase two consultation in relation to the management of operational effects at Carnwath Road Riverside. This includes the identification of site specific issues associated with the site once it is operational and proposals to address the effects of these issues. During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with Carnwath Road Riverside once the site is operational 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 dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in tables 10.7.1 and 10.7.2. Tables 10.7.3 to 10.7.34 detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments confirmed whether the right issues and the ways to address those issues had been identified. Table 10.7.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q7a) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 1 10 414 0 425 126 205 94 1 125 1
- LBHF
Yes
No
Dont know/ unsure
6 198
3 91
10-110
Table 10.7.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q7b) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total 10.7.3 Number of respondents Total 0 1 10 403 0 414 69 252 93 2 67 1
- LBHF
Yes
No
Dont know/ unsure
4 247
4 89
The following sections set out the feedback comments received from respondents in connection with the identification of key issues associated with Carnwath Road Riverside once it is operational. Feedback comments are organised under common themes. The themes are: General themes General feedback comments on the key issues General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues Topic based themes Air quality and odour Historic environment Land quality and contamination Lighting Natural environment (aquatic) Natural environment (terrestrial) Noise and vibration Open space and recreation Planning and development Socio-economic Structures and utilities Townscape and visual Transport and access Water and flood risk
General comments on the key issues

Supportive and neutral feedback comments general Table 10.7.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments relating to general key issues during operation Ref 10.7.4 Supportive and neutral comments The correct key issues have been identified. Respondent ID 8124 No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted and welcomed.
10-111
10 Carnwath Road Riverside Objections, issues and concerns general Table 10.7.4 Objections, issues and concerns relating to general key issues during operation Ref 10.7.5 10.7.6 Objections, issues and concerns The wrong/none of the key issues have been identified. Identification and description of potential effects and key issues is too vague/general/not satisfactorily explained. The scale of potential effects has not been properly assessed and/or underestimated. Respondent ID 7217, 7795, 7931 7730, 7848, 7920, 8821 No. 3 4 Our response The key issues set out in the site information paper are what we consider to be the most significant issues associated with the Carnwath Road Riverside site once the tunnel is operational. It is not however an exhaustive list, and further potential issues associated with the site are set out in the volume 13 Design development report, Phase two scheme development report and site selection methodology and background papers. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Providing a balanced analysis in our consultation material was imperative and we do not agree that the material was biased in our favour, inaccurate or misleading. All the material presented contained necessary information for consultees to understand our proposals and make their own judgements. A range of technical assessments, including an environmental impact assessment, are being undertaken to inform development of our proposals for this site. A preliminary assessment was provided in our PEIR (volume 13) as part of our phase two consultation. Under the current programme, advanced constructions works would commence in 2015 and construction in 2016. We believe that this programme allows adequate time for public consultation, design revisions and determination of the application prior to this. An overview leaflet was included with the notification letters sent to community consultees in the vicinity of our preferred sites. The overview leaflet summarised our proposals and described likely significant effects, including at our preferred sites, in clear, accessible and non-technical language. The information provided also made it clear how consultees could find more information on the project including on our website, at one of our exhibitions or by calling a dedicated phone line. In total we sent over 129,515 letters, overview leaflets and language line information sheets to residents with an interest in the project. However, given the volume and size of documents, direct delivery of all documentation was not feasible. The Changes project information paper, which summarises Outcome N N
10.7.7
7751, 7865, 7920
10.7.8
Information provided on the key issues is misleading/insufficient/flawed.
7513, 7848, 8094
10.7.9
Responses to the key issues imply that Thames Water has already taken the decision to proceed without fully assessing the scale of potential effects.
8109
10.7.10
Information relating to key issues should be provided directly to affected residents.
7692
10.7.11
Thames Water has failed to address
7751, 7865
10-112
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID fundamental issues or assess them objectively on the assumption that the tunnel will go ahead regardless/in order to progress the project.
No.
Our response the principal changes emerging from phase one consultation, shows that we are listening to the feedback we receive on our proposals and where possible are amending our proposals to reflect the concerns being raised. This Report on phase two consultation sets out our view on how we intend to respond to the feedback received during this phase of consultation. Refer to our response at paragraph 10.3.29 above.
Outcome
10.7.12
10.7.13
10.7.14
10.7.15
10.7.16
Identification of key issues is irrelevant since the site should not have been selected in the first place. The number and/or type of key issues associated with the site is inconsistent with the decision to select it as the preferred site/indicates that this site should not have been selected. More fundamental issues regarding the site's selection, its suitability and alternative sites have not been addressed/recognised. Key issues identified for this site would not need to be addressed and/or could be better dealt with at other alternative sites. There are more key issues than those identified in the site information paper.
7440, 8678
7201
7390, 7702, 8629
7143, 7177
7129
The key issues set out in the site information paper are what we consider to be the most significant issues associated with the Carnwath Road Riverside site once the tunnel is operational. It is not however an exhaustive list, and further potential issues associated with the site are set out in the PEIR (volume 13) Design development report, Phase two scheme development report and site selection methodology and background papers. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.
10.7.17
Although the issues have been correctly identified, there is no guarantee that this will reflect the reality of operation. Key issues cannot be fully identified until the design is fixed and/or the tunnel is operational. These are matters for experts to comment on/not qualified to comment.
7284, 7431
10.7.18
7394, 7486
We believe we have identified key issues nonetheless. Once N the tunnel is operational, we propose to undertake performance monitoring as well as regular inspection and maintenance visits which will allow us to identify any N unforeseen effects and put in place suitable measures to manage them. The purpose of consultation is to explore as fully as possible what those with an interest in the project think about our proposals. We will have regard to comments received from both technical and non-technical consultees. N
10.7.19
7848, 8629
10-113
Ref 10.7.20
Objections, issues and concerns Arguments put forward are cosmetic/insubstantial.
Respondent ID 7112
No. 1
Our response The key issues set out in the site information paper are what we consider to be the most significant issues associated with the Carnwath Road Riverside site once the tunnel is operational. It is not however an exhaustive list, and further potential issues associated with the site are set out in the PEIR (volume 13) Design development report, Phase two scheme development report and site selection methodology and background papers. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. We have sought to understand the concerns of residents through our consultation process. The proposals presented at phase two consultation reflect the issues raised by local residents during previous consultation activities. The purpose of phase two consultation was to further explore the issues and concerns of local residents to make sure that, where possible, the principal concerns of local residents are taken into account. This Report on phase two consultation sets out our view on how we intend to respond to the feedback received during this phase of consultation. Our DCO application for development consent must be accompanied by a Consultation report explaining how we have responded to public consultation including explanations of instances where no change to the project design is proposed in response to comments received through consultation. The process is intended to be open and transparent to ensure that project promoters give careful consideration to consultation responses and, where necessary, adjust their proposals accordingly. Our site selection process has had full regard to possible likely significant effects on the local area and community, and the environmental impact assessment process will undertake further assessment and recommend any necessary mitigation measures. In particular, the environment and community assessments undertaken as part of site selection had regard to the number and nature of sensitive receptors and possible impacts from traffic and in terms of noise, air quality, and visual impact. We also considered impacts on employment uses and possible conflict with planning policy seeking to protect local amenity.
Outcome N
10.7.21
Issues identified and responses to them do not respond to residents real concerns.
7121, 8091
10.7.22
The list of key issues indicates that there is a real risk to the local community.
7173
10-114
Ref 10.7.23
Objections, issues and concerns While Thames Water may have identified the right key issues, the solutions put forward to address them are unsatisfactory.
Respondent ID 7192, 7382, 7566, 7922
No. 4
Our response
Outcome
The measures set out in the Carnwath Road Riverside site N information paper are intended to provide a broad overview of how we intend to address potential issues associated with the site. Further information can be found in the PEIR (volume 13). Measures proposed to address likely significant effects are being further developed and considered as part of the environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. As part of the site selection process (as detailed in our site selection methodology paper and supporting technical background paper) and scheme development, a number of factors have been taken into account, including planning, environmental, engineering, property and community considerations. Further details can be found in the Phase two scheme development report and Design development report. N
10.7.24
The starting point has been the tunnel's technical requirements, rather than the effects on local residents and communities.
7216
10.7.25
Construction effects are more important than those occurring during the operational period.
8124
We have sought to address likely significant effects N occurring in both the construction and operational phases. The range and type of effect during each of these phases is likely to be different, and we have developed specific mitigation measures that will respond to the particular range of effects occurring at any particular site. Potential issues associated with the site during construction are set out in the PEIR (volume 13). We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. As part of this, we carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. Further information relating to likely significant operational effects can be found in the PEIR (volume 13). We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient. The feedback from phase two consultation has been the subject of careful analysis as presented in this report, which (in line with legislation and guidance) makes clear where we have made changes, such as the consideration of alternative sites as well as technical solutions; where we are examining mitigation in response to the feedback; and where we are not making changes and the reasons for this. We are fully aware of our responsibility to deal with likely significant effects arising from our proposals both in connection with the preferred sites and the wider impacts of N
10.7.26
Need more information on operational effects generally.
8821
10.7.27
Other general operational issues and comments included: - Thames Water should be the judge of whether the right issues have been identified, based on the feedback to phase two consultation
- the tone of the question hints at self-
7529, 8725, 8821, 9089, 9377, LR13474
N N
congratulation
- issues associated with the impact of the
permanent buildings are discussed, but
10-115
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns not the tunnel itself

- the proposals don't appear to have been
Respondent ID
No.
properly worked through

- the key issues should be dealt with in the
site information paper, rather than referring to other documents

- the way that Thames Water has handled
the site selection process means that local residents have little faith in it with regards to the identification and mitigation of potential issues.
Our response the tunnel. We set out a preliminary assessment in the PEIR (volume 13). We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment of the project which will identify measures to address any significant adverse effects and these measures will be implemented by our contractor. An Environmental statement, which records the findings of the environmental impact assessment, will accompany our DCO application. We sought to achieve a balance between the amount of general and technical information provided. We aimed to provide information in a form accessible for all to understand, while still providing sufficient information to comment on the issues we highlighted eg effects arising from the construction and operational phases. We also produced A guide to phase two consultation which provided further information on what information was available on different topics to aid navigation of the documentation produced. At each exhibition, members of staff were also available to answer any questions attendees may have had on our proposals. Members of the public could also access support through a dedicated phone line.
Outcome N N
General comments on measures to address the key issues

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to key issues raised general Table 10.7.5 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures to address the key issues during operation Ref 10.7.28 Supportive and neutral comments Measures to address potential issues are satisfactory. Respondent ID 7404, 9253 No. 2 Our response Your comments are noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to key issues raised general Table 10.7.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures to address the key issues during operation Ref 10.7.29 Objections, issues and concerns Measures to address potential issues are unsatisfactory/unconvincing. Respondent ID 7216, 7380, 7390, 7391, 7507, 7618, 7794, 7848, 8007, 8036, 8047, 8106, 8111, 8313, 8636, 9089 No. 16 Our response The measures set out in the Carnwath Road Riverside site information paper are intended to provide a broad overview of how we intend to address potential issues associated with the site. Further information can be found in the PEIR (volume 13). Measures proposed to address likely significant effects are being further developed and considered as part of the environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Refer to our response at paragraph 10.3.29 above. Outcome N
10.7.30
Measures to address potential effects are unsatisfactory/irrelevant as the wrong site has been identified/alternatives have not
7285LO, 7461, 7464, 7472, 7633, 7932, 8494
10-116
Ref 10.7.31
Objections, issues and concerns been properly considered. Measures to address potential effects are unsatisfactory because the wrong/not all issues have been identified. Measures to address potential effects are unsatisfactory because the scale and/or significance of the issues has been underestimated/not properly assessed. Thames Water cannot guarantee that potential effects will be satisfactorily addressed and/or reduced
Respondent ID 7217, 7502, 8327
No. 3
Our response The key issues set out in the site information paper are intended to provide a broad overview of likely significant effects and key issues associated with the site once it is operational. It is not however an exhaustive list. Further potential issues associated with the site and measures to address these are set out in the PEIR (volume 13). We believe that the measures set out in the site information paper will address and/or reduce the likely significant effects satisfactorily. Measures proposed to address likely significant effects are being further developed and considered as part of the environmental impact assessment. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. We have sought to avoid or eliminate likely significant effects wherever possible by developing robust technical solutions to potential issues such as odour and through our proposals for the permanent site design and layout. If a Development Consent Order (DCO) is granted we would anticipate a series of requirements (similar to planning conditions) that would control the development. We expect that the requirements would secure the provision of the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental Statement that will be submitted with the application. We believe we have identified key issues. Once the tunnel is operational, we propose to undertake performance monitoring as well as regular inspection and maintenance visits which will allow us to identify any unforeseen effects and put in place suitable measures to manage them. We have sought to understand the concerns of residents through our consultation process. The proposals presented at phase two consultation reflect the issues raised by local residents during previous consultation activities for the project and our preliminary assessments at this site. The purpose of phase two consultation was to further explore the issues and concerns of local residents to make sure that, where possible, the principal concerns of local residents are taken into account. This Report on phase two consultation sets out our view on how we intend to respond to the feedback received during this phase of consultation. Our DCO application for development consent must be accompanied by a
Outcome N
10.7.32
7848
10.7.33
13235, 7228
10.7.34
Measures proposed to address potential effects may minimise or manage them, but they cannot be eliminated/prevented. Measures suggested to address the issues show no commitment towards/ devolves Thames Waters responsibility to deal with the effects arising from their proposals.
11351, 13235
10.7.35
8874
10.7.36
There are likely to be unforeseen effects for which Thames Water cannot plan.
8843LO, 7228
10.7.37
Measures to address potential effects do not 7121, 7920, 8047 address the real concerns of local residents.
10-117
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Consultation report explaining how we have responded to public consultation including explanation of instances where no change to the scheme design is proposed in response to comments received through consultation. The process is intended to be open and transparent and ensure that project promoters give careful consideration to consultation responses and where necessary adjust their proposals accordingly. We have thoroughly tested and modelled the proposed technical solutions, which will be subject to on-going monitoring following their implementation. The Changes project information paper, which summarises the principal changes emerging from phase one consultation, shows that we are listening to the feedback we receive on our proposals and where possible are amending our proposals to reflect the concerns being raised. Further details can be found in the Phase two scheme development report. This Report on phase two consultation sets out our view on how we intend to respond to the feedback received during this phase of consultation. When we submit our DCO application for determination, it will be accompanied by a Consultation report that will set out how we have taken into account the feedback received across all phases of consultation. We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. As part of this, we carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. Our approach to producing material was that information should be made available to members of the community in an accessible form and detailed technical information be made available for technical consultees and is consistent with the guidance provided by the DCLG in their guidance on pre-application consultation. Information on proposed measures to address issues can be found in the PEIR (volume 13). Measures proposed to address likely significant effects are being further developed and considered as part of the environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. An integral part of the pre-application process is the legal requirement that we consult with the communities and
Outcome
10.7.38
The effectiveness of technical solutions cannot be proved. Measures to address issues should be informed by and take account of local consultation and feedback.
11351, 12244, 12281, 12682, 13120, 7120, 7371 8047
10.7.39
10.7.40 10.7.41
More information on measures to address issues is needed. Information provided on key issues and measures to address this is misleading/insufficient.
7507, 8075 7216
2 1
N N
10.7.42
Consultation feedback does not appear to have been taken into account by Thames
7102
10-118
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns Water.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response stakeholders in the vicinity of the tunnel route and the sites we intend to use in constructing and operating the project and that we take account of all the comments received in response to consultation. We also need to have regard to advice and guidance issued by the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State in respect of the pre-application consultation requirements. The process is intended to be open and transparent and to ensure that project promoters give careful consideration to consultation responses and where necessary adjust their proposals accordingly. We are committed to this approach and produced reports following our phase one consultation and interim engagement. At phase one consultation, we consulted on need to reduce the amount of sewage entering the River Thames; implementing a storage and transfer tunnel as a solution to address CSO discharges; the route of the tunnel; our preferred construction sites and sought views on our initial design proposals for the sites. Consistent with the legal requirement, the project we are consulting on at phase two consultation takes account of the responses we received from phase one consultation and further engineering design refinements identified by the project team. This Report on phase two consultation sets out our view on how we intend to respond to the feedback received during this phase of consultation. When we submit our DCO application for determination, it will be accompanied by a Consultation report which will set out how we have taken into account the feedback received across all phases of consultation. Refer to our response at paragraph 10.3.29 above.
Outcome
10.7.43 10.7.44
Identified issues can/should be avoided/ addressed by changing the preferred site. Responses to key issues provide no guarantee that effects will be managed, controlled or avoided.
9392LO, 7471 8843LO, 8313
2 2
We believe that the measures set out in the site information N paper will address and/or reduce the likely significant effects satisfactorily. Measures proposed to address likely significant effects are being further developed and considered as part of the environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. The feedback from phase one consultation and interim engagement and phase two consultation has been the subject of careful analysis. This Report on phase two consultation sets out our view on how we intend to respond to the feedback received during this phase of consultation. When we submit our DCO application for determination, it N
10.7.45
Other issues and comments relating to measures to address operational issues included: - Thames Water must take the feedback from phase two consultation into account
-
7102, 7529, 7553, 7673, 7751, 7894
10-119
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns Thames Water has not identified a development partner who would be able to add value to the area Thames Water is trying to justify its position, rather than being objective there has been an agenda from the start it is impossible to address the potential issues because the site is so close to a residential area.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response will be accompanied by a Consultation report that will set out how we have taken into account the feedback received across all phases of consultation. Providing a balanced analysis in our consultation material was imperative and we do not agree that the material was biased in our favour, inaccurate or misleading. All the material presented contained necessary information for consultees to understand our proposals and make their own judgements.
Outcome N
N N N
Air quality and odour

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour Table 10.7.7 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour issues during operation Ref 10.7.46 Supportive and neutral comments Proposals will ensure that odour is satisfactorily managed. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour Table 10.7.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour issues during operation Ref 10.7.47 Objections, issues and concerns Require assurances that carbon filtration would negate any sewer odour, this does not appear to be borne out by Thames Water's own research. It is not clear what the scale or duration of the effect will be; the assessment to date is very vague. Effect of odour arising from operation of the tunnel. Effect of odour on residential amenity. Respondent ID 7147, 7168, 7199, 7472, 7671, 7776, 7780, 7881, 8192, 8451, 8749, 9303 No. 12 Our response Our PEIR (volume 13, section 4) sets out the findings of a preliminary qualitative assessment of likely significant odour 10.7.48 effects which identifies a negligible effect arising from operation of the tunnel. A further quantitative assessment will be presented in the Environmental statement that is submitted with our DCO application. The assessment methodologies are based on best practice and have been agreed with LBHF. The ventilation facilities are designed to minimise the release of untreated air from the tunnel system and for 99.6 per cent of average year, air released from the tunnel will be treated and will not have any odours. This arrangement meets the Environment Agencys odour criteria. When the tunnel is empty, the ventilation system is operated so as to maintain a pressure lower than atmospheric pressure hence preventing air from leaving the tunnel. This is achieved by extracting air at specific active ventilation facilities which are currently proposed at our sites at Acton Storm Tanks, Carnwath Road Riverside, Greenwich and Abbey Mills pumping stations where the air is treated before being released through a high ventilation column. When the tunnel fills with sewage, the air path throughout the tunnel is gradually lost and air will be displaced by the rising sewage levels. This air will pass through mechanical filters where it Outcome N
10.7.49
8807LO, 7499, 7793, 9303
10.7.50 10.7.51
See annex C of this report 9392LO, 7461, 7469, 7477, 7518, 7522, 7526, 7532, 7654, 7934, 7949, 8192, 8313, 8404, 8537, 8542, 8652, 8728, 9474 8404
2,057 19
N N
10.7.52
Effect of odour on other sensitive receptors.
10-120
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome is treated before being released. The technology which included carbon filtration has been used at the Olympic Park in Stratford, where it has been demonstrated to operate effectively to control emissions. We are confident that our proposed technology achieves the regulatory requirements. Our Air management plan sets out the ventilation emissions for a typical year at each site. At Carnwath Road Riverside untreated exhaust will be released for 34 hours over 14 events per year and the remaining 99.6 per cent of exhaust will be fully treated. Where the untreated exhaust is released (0.4 per cent of the time), the odour will still be within the strict limits set by the Environment Agency. We do not anticipate that there will be any dust arising from 10.7.54 the operation of the tunnel or from general inspection and maintenance activities at this site. 10.7.56 Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of air pollution associated with operation of the tunnel is set out in our PEIR (volume 13, section 4). The PEIR concludes that when the tunnel is operational no significant effects are predicted in relation to air pollution. We do not anticipate any significant air pollution as we have developed an Air management plan to ensure the tunnel is operated in such a way to control odour. At this site we are proposing the use of a mechanical ventilation system that draws air through the tunnel with fans before cleaning the air using carbon filters that absorb possible odour before the air leaves the ventilation equipment. After treatment, air from the tunnel is discharged via a ventilation column, further mitigating any possible impacts on local air quality. We are also preparing a Health impact assessment for submission with the application. The health impact assessment will assess the likely significant effects of the project on the health of identified vulnerable groups. If significant effects are identified appropriate mitigation would be proposed. N N N N N
10.7.53 10.7.55 10.7.57 10.7.58 10.7.59
Dust and dirt arising from operational activities. Dust and dirt arising from activities associated with tunnel operation. Wind will cause air pollution arising from the project to spread. Effect of reduced air quality on residential amenity. Effect on air quality of operation of the tunnel, including: - times when gases will not be treated - expelling of untreated gases within such a heavily residential area is unacceptable. Ventilation is likely to produce toxic gases apart from the smell. General air pollution effects arising from the operation of the tunnel. Effects on health arising from dust, odour and reduced air quality on the community living within a one to two mile radius from the site which includes a very large portion of Fulham with over 4,500 school children attending the 17 schools and nurseries within 1,500m of the site. More information is needed on air quality and odour effects.
7856 8210, 8865 7012 13145 LBHF, 7285LO, 7121, 7221, 7522, 7833, 7900, 7931, 7949, 7972, 8075, 8636, 8785
1 2 1 1 13
10.7.60 10.7.61 10.7.62
11247 7168, 7341, 7478, 7526, 7856, 7920, 8007, 8048, 8117, 8210 13363, 7012, 7520, 7934, 8192
1 10 5
N N N
10.7.63
7500, 7549, 7869, 7968, 8749
We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. As part of this, we carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. This included our draft CoCP and PEIR. We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient. Further assessment will be undertaken as part of our on-
10-121
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response going environmental impact assessment work and this will be reported in the Environmental statement to be submitted with our DCO application. If significant effects are identified appropriate mitigation would be proposed.
Outcome
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures proposed to address air quality and odour Table 10.7.9 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures proposed to address air quality and odour issues during operation Ref 10.7.64 Supportive and neutral comments Mitigation proposed to address permanent air quality and odour issues is satisfactory. Respondent ID 11014, 11026, 11067, 11068, 11073, 11082, 11090, 11112, 11113, 11134, 11136, 11137, 11139, 11154, 11157, 11171, 11227, 11299, 11307, 11324, 11336, 11349, 11363, 11378, 11434, 11435, 11478, 11480, 11484, 11489, 11494, 11509, 11521, 11531, 11533, 11573, 11593, 11600, 11605, 11629, 11630, 11642, 11645, 11675, 11724, 11731, 11739, 11742, 11743, 11757, 11779, 11787, 11802, 11815, 11860, 11862, 11874, 11876, 11888, 11928, 11935, 11952, 11957, 11958, 11989, 12009, 12014, 12016, 12022, 12050, 12055, 12092, 12107, 12109, 12116, 12124, 12127, 12128, 12164, 12184, 12188, 12189, 12201, 12222, 12225, 12230, 12245, 12265, 12268, 12291, 12294, 12298, 12317, 12330, 12342, 12358, 12360, 12372, 12384, 12385, 12395, 12412, 12416, 12428, 12438, 12471, 12496, 12547, 12554, 12558, 12561, 12562, 12588, 12607, 12609, 12619, 12623, 12652, 12656, 12658, 12662, 12686, 12720, 12726, 12728, 12729, 12735, 12742, 12745, 12754, 12756, 12766, 12777, 12781, 12785, 12791, 12806, 12847, 12885, 12887, 12907, 12910, 12916, 12921, 12927, 12932, 12934, 12935, 12956, 12983, 13001, 13012, 13013, 13016, 13040, 13079, 13100, 13102, 13106, 13129, 13140, 13148, 13188, 13214, 13216, 13217, 13223, 13233, 7147, 7371, 7403, 7413, 7462, 7486, 7540, 7704, 7781, 7997, 8043, 8199, 8635, 8755, 9024, LR13433 No. 184 Our response Your comments are noted and welcomed.
10-122
Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to address air quality and odour Table 10.7.10 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address air quality and odour issues during operation Ref 10.7.65 10.7.66 10.7.67 Objections, issues and concerns To address air quality and odour during operation an alternative site should be used. Mitigation proposed does not address the issues. More information is needed on mitigation, including: - energy required for the fans
- the carbon filters in the ventilation column - has the Air management plan been tested
Respondent ID 7221 7786 8807LO, 11670, 7364, 7466, 7500, 7507, 7510, 7522, 7680, 7889, 7890, 7958, 8037, 8075, 8110, 8199, 8209, 8414, 8505, 8537, 8724, 9474
No. 1 1 22
Our response Refer to our response at paragraph 10.3.29 above. Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of odour associated with operation of the tunnel is set out in our PEIR (volume 13, section 4). The PEIR concludes that when the tunnel is operational no significant effects are predicted in relation to odour. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of the likely significant effects of operation on air quality and odour. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. If a DCO is granted we would anticipate a series of requirements (similar to planning conditions) that would control the development. We expect that the requirements would secure the provision of the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental Statement that will be submitted with the application. The proposed odour control units will contain activated carbon filters. This is standard technology used worldwide and in the UK. The technology has been used at the Olympic Park in Stratford, where it has been demonstrated to operate effectively to control emissions. We are confident that our proposed technology achieves the regulatory requirements. The ventilation facilities are arranged to minimise the release of untreated air from the tunnel system and for 99.6 per cent of average year, air released from the tunnel will be treated and will not have any odours. Odour is subjective and therefore the project is obliged to apply the Environment Agencys odour criterion which states that we should not exceed 1.5 odour units per cubic metre of air for 98 per cent of the time during the average year. We will achieve this criterion at all sites. It should be noted that 1.5 odour units per cubic metre is barely perceivable by most people and the average background odour in cities is between five to 60 odour units per cubic metre. When the tunnel is empty, the ventilation system is operated so as to maintain a pressure lower than atmospheric pressure hence preventing air from leaving the tunnel. This is achieved by extracting air at specific active ventilation facilities which are currently proposed at our sites at Acton Storm Tanks, Carnwath Road Riverside, Greenwich and
Outcome N N N
N N
on another part of the existing sewer system?

- where has this Air management plan been
used elsewhere and has it been successful?

- need guarantee that there will be no
N N
residual odour. 10.7.68 Mitigation proposed to address the issues is inadequate/insufficient, including: - well known that filters can clean the air of particles but they are mostly inefficient when it comes to odours - does not address the potential odourless pollution from the shaft. No guarantee that the mitigation technology proposed will be delivered or function as stated, including: - odour - disbelief in ability of Air management plans. Use other technological solution for emissions; gas fuel source. Odour from air via the shaft should be treated all year round. 8082LO, 7121, 7125, 7129, 7362, 7364, 7371, 7518, 7776, 7786, 7894, 8007, 8542, 8656, 8724, 8891, 9384, 9461 18
10.7.69
9392LO, 7121, 7125, 7148, 7228, 7422, 7466, 7469, 7477, 7481, 7499, 7500, 7518, 7523, 7558, 7569, 7618, 7786, 7833, 7865, 7869, 7892, 7894, 7931, 7933, 7949, 7958, 8047, 8075, 8110, 8209, 8313, 8451, 8457, 8505, 8537, 8542, 8652, 8724, 8755, 8888, 8891, 9377 7558 8047, 9337
43
10.7.70 10.7.71
1 2
N N
10-123
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome Abbey Mills pumping stations where the air is treated before being released through a high ventilation column. When the tunnel fills with sewage, the air path throughout the tunnel is gradually lost and air will be displaced by the rising sewage levels. This air will pass through mechanical filters where it is treated before being released. The tunnel ventilation system has a number of redundancies built in and works as a complete system so that in the unlikely event of a failure at one site the required through put of air can be maintained by increased ventilation elsewhere in the system. The systems will be monitored and replacements for elements such as the passive filters planned in advance of their end of their design life. The purpose of consultation is to explore as fully as possible what those with an interest in the project think about our proposals. We will have regard to comments received from both technical and non-technical consultees. N
10.7.72
Not qualified to comment on this technical matter.
7972, 8728
Historic environment
10.7.73 No feedback comments were received in relation to historic environment issues during operation.
Land quality and contamination

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to land quality and contamination 10.7.74 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to land quality and contamination issues during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination Table 10.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination issues during operation Ref 10.7.75 Objections, issues and concerns Effect on human health arising from site contamination released during construction or pollution incidents associated with site construction activities. Respondent ID 8503 No. 1 Our response We are currently preparing a Health impact assessment to assess any likely significant effects on health which may arise from the development, during both construction and operation. It is not anticipated that there would be any substantive effects on health as a result of pollution incidents. The tunnel and associated infrastructure will be designed and built to the appropriate standards (including a secondary lining of the tunnel) such that pollution incidents, eg to groundwater, are unlikely. Our Environmental statement will include assessments of groundwater, surface water, air quality and odour. Once the tunnel is operational, sewage would be conveyed along the main tunnel which is at a depth of approximately 45m below ground level at Carnwath Road. The tunnel is designed to convey and then store storm sewage during periods of heavy rain. The inlets to the tunnel are designed to close off once it reaches capacity. This will ensure that Outcome N
10.7.76
Potential for sewage leaks and faults in the system once the tunnel is operational.
7865, 8503
10-124
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response storm sewage is always stored in the tunnel and shafts below ground level, even in the most extreme circumstances. Therefore, there is no risk that sewage will leak from the tunnel onto the site or backflow into the surrounding sewerage system.
Outcome
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures proposed to address key issues 10.7.77 10.7.78 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to measures to address land quality and contamination issues during operation. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to address key issues No objections, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to measures to address land quality and contamination issues during operation.
Lighting
10.7.79 No feedback comments were received in relation to lighting issues during operation.
Natural environment (aquatic)

10.7.80 No feedback comments were received in relation to natural environment (aquatic) issues during operation.
Natural environment (terrestrial)

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to natural environment (terrestrial) issues Table 10.7.12 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to natural environment (terrestrial) issues during operation Ref 10.7.81 Supportive and neutral comments Support efforts to minimise the long-term impacts to biodiversity and secure improvements. Respondent ID LR9491 No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to natural environment (terrestrial) issues Table 10.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to natural environment (terrestrial) issues during operation Ref 10.7.82 Objections, issues and concerns Potential effects on the natural environment will be greater than those set out in the consultation material. General environmental/ecological impact arising from the operation and maintenance of the site. Respondent ID 7342 No. 1 Our response As stated in para. 6.1.3 of our PEIR (volume 13, section 6), significant operational effects on terrestrial ecology as a result of the tunnel operation and the infrequent maintenance visits are not anticipated therefore this has not been assessed. A full assessment will be presented in our Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. This will consider the likely significant effects of the development based on a methodology set out in our PEIR (volume 13, section 6). Outcome N
10.7.83
7968, 8036
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures proposed to address key issues 10.7.84 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to measures to address natural environment (terrestrial) issues during operation.
10-125
Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to address key issues Table 10.7.14 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address natural environment (terrestrial) issues during operation Ref 10.7.85 10.7.86 Objections, issues and concerns Provision of compensation habitat; put nesting and roosting boxes up. Maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity through an effective mitigation package. Respondent ID 7404 LR9491 No. 1 1 Our response As stated in para. 6.1.3 of our PEIR (volume 13, section 6), significant operational effects on terrestrial ecology are not anticipated therefore this has not been assessed. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of the likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. The proposed site design included new tree planting AND landscaping. All permanent works will be located within the defined site boundary. Outcome N N
10.7.87
Locate permanent works within the site to avoid sensitive and designated areas.
LR9491
Noise and vibration

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to noise and vibration issues 10.7.88 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to noise and vibration issues during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration issues Table 10.7.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration issues during operation Ref 10.7.89 10.7.90 10.7.91 Objections, issues and concerns General noise effects arising from the operation of the tunnel. General vibration effects arising from the operation of the tunnel. Noise from machinery on the site; noise will be generated constantly as water is pumped through the tunnel. Effect on health arising from noise and vibration from construction Proximity to residential area/densely populated area Proximity to other sensitive receptors, including schools. Effect on quality of life/residential amenity. More information is needed on noise and vibration effects once the tunnel is operational. Underestimated impact on the community Respondent ID 7121, 7177, 7391, 7478, 7759, 7765, 7920, 7968, 8075, 8117, 8210, 8636, 8865 7177, 7920, 8117, 8636 7236, 7461, 7537, 7549, 7786, 8210, 8413, 8537, 8681, 8742 7012, 7856 7461, 7478, 7537, 7549, 7753, 7759, 7764, 7765, 7766, 7856, 8030, 8121 7478, 7537, 7753, 7759, 7764, 7765, 7766, 8030, 8121 7478, 7920, 8117 7856, 7920, 8211 No. 13 4 10 Our response Our PEIR (volume 13, section 9) sets out a preliminary assessment of the likely significant operational noise and vibration effects of the proposed scheme. No likely significant effects were identified, subject to the specification of the equipment with appropriate noise control measures to ensure the targets in BS4142 are met. Therefore we do not expect any effect on occupiers of users of adjacent or nearby properties, businesses or facilities, or on any sensitive structures of equipment. Our Environmental statement, which will be submitted with our DCO application, will provide a full assessment of likely significant noise and vibration effects. We are also preparing a Health impact assessment to assess any likely significant effects on health which may arise from the proposed construction of the development. However, it is not anticipated that there will be any substantive effects on health. The Health impact assessment will be submitted as part of our DCO application. The permanent ventilation equipment on the site will be acoustically insulated to ensure it does not cause a noise Outcome N N N
10.7.92 10.7.93 10.7.94 10.7.95 10.7.96
2 12 9 3 3
N N N N N
10.7.97
7147, 7478, 7968
10-126
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns Legacy of noise and pollution
Respondent ID
No.
Our response nuisance to nearby residents.
Outcome
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures proposed to address key issues 10.7.98 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to measures to address noise and vibration issues during operation. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to address key issues Table 10.7.16 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address noise and vibration issues during operation Ref 10.7.99 Objections, issues and concerns Noise and vibration issues during operation could be addressed by using an alternative site (non-residential area). Respondent ID 7461 No. 1 Our response Refer to our response at paragraph 10.3.29 above. Outcome N
10.7.100 Mitigation proposed does not address the issues. 10.7.101 More information is needed on mitigation. 10.7.102 Mitigation proposed to address the issues is inadequate/insufficient.
7012, 7478 7920 7856, 8734
2 1 2
As detailed in our PEIR (volume 13, section 9) noise control measures would be included on all plant items as part of the design process to limit noise increases to within appropriate noise limits to avoid disturbance, in accordance with British Standards. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of the likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. If a Development Consent Order (DCO) is granted we would anticipate a series of requirements (similar to planning conditions) that would control the development. We expect that the requirements would secure the provision of the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental Statement that will be submitted with the application.
N N N
10.7.103 No guarantee that the mitigation proposed will be delivered.
7931
Open space and recreation

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to open space and recreation issues Table 10.7.17 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to open space and recreation issues during operation Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID 8022 No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted.
10.7.104 Not concerned by disruption to HYC Pier.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation issues Table 10.7.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation issues during operation Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 9253 No. 1 Our response Once our site is operational we do not propose to use the river. Our permanent works will not extend into the river at this site. As such there will be no effect on other river users. Our proposals for the permanent layout and design of the site will also bring long-term benefits to the local area, Outcome N
10.7.105 Disruption to sports groups and other local clubs, including local rowing and sailing clubs. 10.7.106 Effect on children/young people and teenagers arising from the loss of open
7199
10-127
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns space.
Respondent ID 7199
No. 1
10.7.107 The site is a very valuable recreational amenity for the local community.
Our response including the creation of a new public open space with tree planting and landscaping.
Outcome N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures proposed to address open space and recreation issues 10.7.108 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to measures to address open space and recreation issues during operation. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to address open space and recreation issues 10.7.109 No objections, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to measures to address open space and recreation issues during operation.
Planning and development

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to planning and development issues 10.7.110 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to planning and development issues during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development issues Table 10.7.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development issues during operation Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 8404, 8855 No. 2 Our response Our proposals for the site will not compromise Hurlingham Wharf's safeguarded status, with the location of our permanent works on Whiffin Wharf. The wharf offers the opportunity to use the river to transport materials from the site during construction, which is consistent with GLA policy. The site is allocated for housing and employment uses within the wider South Fulham Riverside Regeneration Area in LBHF's adopted Core Strategy. While the use of this site during construction of the tunnel will prevent it from redevelopment in the short term, much of the site can be redeveloped in line with its allocation upon completion of our works. We have designed the permanent layout and design of the site to minimise the amount of land that is needed permanently, allowing as much of the site as possible to be redeveloped. Our proposals for the permanent layout and design of the site will also bring long-term benefits to the local area, including the creation of a new public open space with tree planting and landscaping, possible road junction improvements and an extension to the Thames Path pedestrian walkway. Outcome N
10.7.111 Effect on a safeguarded wharf.
10.7.112 Proposal is contrary to adopted planning 8215, 8855 policy: - South Fulham Riverside Regeneration Area - contravenes core policy on improving open space, increasing social and private housing and improved local transport. 10.7.113 Conflict with emerging regeneration proposals/future developments: - what restaurants, cafes and bars will want to open next to a sewer? Who will want to build flats that overlook a sewer? - South Fulham Riverside area regeneration. 10.7.114 Proposals will impact on local regeneration. 10.7.115 Clarification is needed to explain how the proposals will not affect the wider regeneration of the area 10.7.116 Further clarification of the long-term benefits of the proposals is needed. LBHF, 9417LO, 9481LO, 7199, 7228, 7364, 7461, 7466, 7476, 7502, 7507, 7521, 7639, 7854, 7894, 7968, 8215, 8404, 8537, 8636, 8727, 8838, 8855, LR9418
24
7193, 7958, 8113, 8210, 8215, 8451, 8537, 8734, 8855 7507, 7510, 7869, 7958
9 4
N N
7331LO, 7118, 7133, 7147, 7216, 7364, 7422, 7522, 7549, 7847, 7848, 8210, 8537, 8542, 8684, 8755, 8923
17
10-128
Ref
Respondent ID 7424, 7728, 8117, 8451
No. 4
Our response Statutory procedures are in place to enable qualifying landowners to serve notice requiring compulsory purchase of land that is blighted. Any qualifying claims for statutory blight can be made after the DCO application has been submitted. In addition to the statutory procedures, we published our exceptional hardship procedure at phase two consultation. This procedure goes beyond the legal requirements and enables property owners meeting certain criteria to apply to us to purchase their property voluntarily. Further information is available on our website. One of the key development constraints in the local area identified in the draft South Fulham Riverside SPD is the capacity of the existing highways. An objective of the SPD is therefore to improve local road infrastructure to accommodate the increase in residential and other uses, which will ease congestion at junctions and improve connectivity to transport nodes. Improved local road infrastructure delivered as part of our proposals will help to contribute towards the achievement of this objective while removing some of the highway constraints in the local area that may currently be preventing potential development interests from coming forward.
Outcome N
10.7.117 Proposals will lead to planning blight in an area with the potential to attract great business.
10.7.118 Further clarification is needed on how the improvements to the Carnwath Road/A217 junction would facilitate regeneration through increased highway capacity.
8855
10.7.119 Other planning and development issues included: require clarification on the statement: "the permanent works have been located in accordance with the access and visual corridor proposed in the council's planning policies for South Fulham" and "the proposals are not expected to affect the wider and regeneration of the area".
7499, 7507, 7569, 7847, 7971, 8537, 8652
The draft South Fulham Regeneration SPD identifies the C need to improve both physical and visual permeability in the local area by promoting access through new developments and, where possible, introducing new access to the riverside. Our proposals for the permanent layout and design of the site reflect and contribute towards both of these objectives. We also have designed the permanent layout and design of the site to minimise the amount of land that is needed permanently, allowing as much of the site as possible to be redeveloped and regenerated in line with the LBHFs planning policies and objectives. We are continuing to develop our design proposals for this site in light of feedback to phase two consultation
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures proposed to address planning and development issues 10.7.120 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to measures to address planning and development issues during operation. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to address planning and development issues Table 10.7.20 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address planning and development issues during operation Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 7476, 7502 No. 2 Our response Your comments are noted and we will give further consideration as to how our proposals for this site can align with the regeneration proposals being brought forward by Outcome C
10.7.121 Support for the proposals if integration with planned developments can be demonstrated.
10-129
Ref
Respondent ID GLA, 7364, 7476, 7502, 8117, 8482
No. 6
10.7.122 Other planning and development mitigation: take into account the Community Riverside Characterization Document, which outlines clearly the community's aims for the site.
Our response others.
Outcome C
Socio-economic
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic issues Table 10.7.21 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic issues during operation Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID 11014, 11026, 11047, 11084, 11105, 11112, 11125, 11188, 11225, 11232, 11272, 11375, 11421, 11429, 11479, 11535, 11552, 11565, 11574, 11575, 11643, 11656, 11674, 11687, 11688, 11759, 11776, 11793, 11814, 11861, 11872, 11890, 11931, 11936, 11989, 11997, 12102, 12146, 12171, 12173, 12250, 12295, 12297, 12298, 12327, 12454, 12464, 12475, 12608, 12618, 12662, 12690, 12720, 12726, 12742, 12777, 12844, 12864, 12875, 12877, 12880, 12885, 13041, 7494, 7502, 7663, 7997 No. 67 Our response Your comments are noted.
10.7.123 Not concerned by permanent relocation of Carnwath Road Industrial Estate.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic issues Table 10.7.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic issues during operation Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 7050, 7342 No. 2 Our response Our PEIR (volume 13, section 10) sets out a preliminary assessment of the likely significant socio-economic effects of the operational scheme, which concludes that there are not likely to be any significant adverse effects (that is major or moderate) in the operational phase that would require mitigation. A full Environmental statement will consider the operational effects based on any new information and present this as a part of our DCO application. Outcome N
10.7.124 Potential effects will be greater that those set out in the consultation material; impact on property prices, adverse effect on adjacent businesses and homes will be greater than expected. 10.7.125 It is not clear what the scale of socioeconomic effects will be; the assessment to date is very vague. 10.7.126 Permanent business relocation (light industrial businesses) and associated effects. 10.7.127 Detrimental effect on business operation; Hurlingham Wharf, local industry, shops and restaurants on Wandsworth Bridge Rd, King's Road, impacts on the entrance to Piper Building, small business units sited opposite, affect desirability for any new
7730
1,893
13397LO, 7125, 7147, 7199, 7342, 7364, 7397, 7478, 7654, 7697, 7702, 7865, 7958, 7968, 8075, 8404, 8684
17
10-130
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns businesses to come into the area.
Respondent ID 9392LO, 11284 7199, 7537, LR13474
No. 2 3
Our response
Outcome N N
10.7.128 Loss of jobs due to business relocation. 10.7.129 Effect on the local economy; what restaurants and bars will want to open next to a sewer? 10.7.130 Lasting effect on local area, including its image, reputation and regeneration. 10.7.131 Effect on property prices for both local residents and businesses which the area is unlikely to recover from. 10.7.132 Effect on ability to sell property; in particular in the Piper building. 10.7.133 Effect on quality of life, livelihoods, welfare, human rights, elderly and disabled people.
7168, 7364, 7424, 7472, 7854, 7958, 7971, 8210, 8684 13397LO, 8807LO, 7121, 7364, 7394, 7776, 7793, 7847, 7876, 7890, 7958, 8007, 8008, 8036, 8512, 8755 7285LO 7127, 7147, 7148, 7397, 7462, 7478, 7513, 7526, 7527, 7693, 7699, 7794, 7869, 7920, 7932, 8091, 8111, 8117, 8199, 8210, 8755, 8923, LR13474
9 16
N N
1 23
N N
10.7.134 Effect on human health, elderly and disabled 7012, 7031, 7377, 7380, 7397, 7669, people, high number of residents with 7794, 7856, 7920, 7932, 7971, 8022, respiratory illnesses. 8537, 8923 10.7.135 Effect of the operational site on residential amenity. 10.7.136 Proximity of the operational site to residential properties.
14
9131LO, 9392LO, 7125, 7147, 7342, 7513, 10 7693, 7776, 8192, 8404, 7125, 7147, 7168, 7397, 7427, 7428, 7461, 7483, 7485, 7507, 7529, 7549, 7663, 7692, 7697, 7704, 7869, 7968, 8022, 8111, 8865 7285LO, 7173, 7478, 7521, 7537, 7669, 7698, 7702, 7751, 7854, 7856, 8007, 8091, 8117, 8313, 8327 7285LO, 7031, 7117, 7168, 7217, 7377, 7478, 7507, 7537, 7669, 7702, 7881, 7933, 7958, 7968, 8022, 8117 7776, 7958, 8210, 8683 7050, 7869 21
N N
10.7.137 The local area is densely populated; find a less densely populated area. 10.7.138 Proximity to community and social amenities such as schools. 10.7.139 Proposals will require relocation of homes and cause population displacement. 10.7.140 More information is needed on socioeconomic effects, including the impact on property prices, and the long-term implications of the vent. 10.7.141 Disturbance from future site maintenance activities.
16
17
4 2
N N
8755
As set out in our site information paper vehicles required for site maintenance would normally comprise of a small van every three to six months. Periodically (approximately every ten years) there would be a more detailed site inspection, which would require more vehicles, including two cranes.
10-131
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Given the infrequency of these inspections and the low number of vehicles involved there is not considered to be any effect. We do not anticipate any likely health and safety issues arising during operation. Should we need to access the permanent structures on the site for maintenance purposes, these areas would be temporarily cordoned off to prevent public access during these periods.
Outcome
10.7.142 Health and safety issues associated with the permanent site.
7794
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures proposed to address socio-economic issues 10.7.143 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to measures to address socio-economic issues during operation. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to address socio-economic issues Table 10.7.23 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address socio-economic issues during operation Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 7285LO, 7228, 7397, 7673, 7702, 8111 No. 6 Our response Refer to our response at paragraph 10.3.29 above. Outcome N
10.7.144 Socio-economic effects could be addressed by using an alternative site: - use Barn Elms, less damaging to local community - relocate elsewhere where residents, children and businesses are well removed from immediate area. 10.7.145 Mitigation proposed does not address the issues. 10.7.146 Mitigation proposed to address the issues in inadequate/insufficient; local business issues only partially addressed. 10.7.147 Provide alternative business premises. 10.7.148 Provide appropriate compensation.
7639, 8755 7507
2 1
GLA 7050, 7753, 7759, 7764, 7766, 7793, 8030, 8121, 8313 7050, 7932, 8327, 8888
1 9
Our PEIR (volume 13, section 10) sets out a preliminary assessment of the likely significant socio-economic effects of the operational scheme, which concludes that there are not likely to be any significant adverse effects (that is major or moderate) in the operational phase that would require mitigation. A full Environmental statement would consider the operational effects based on any new information and present this as a part of our DCO application. As we do not anticipate any significant operational socioeconomic effects we do not believe that it would be necessary to provide compensation. We do not believe that the operational site will have a detrimental effect on house prices and the project itself is designed to improve the riparian environment. We therefore do not require a study of the existing housing stock at this stage'. Thames Water will fulfil its obligations as a statutory undertaker, including during occurrences of unforeseen maintenance and would not expect to incur fines as a result of either planned or emergency maintenance works.' We are working with the relevant authorities and specialist advisors to ensure the resilience and security during construction and operation of the Thames Tunnel and
N N
N N
10.7.149 Other socio-economic mitigation suggestions, including: - a study of the likely impact on the pricing of housing stock in the immediate area surrounding/affected by the site should be commissioned - minimise terrorist risks - unexpected odour, noise and maintenance issues outside normal working hours should result in Thames Water paying a fine to either local residents or the council.
10-132
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response related infrastructure.
Outcome
Structures and utilities

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to structures and utilities issues 10.7.150 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to structures and utilities issues during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities issues Table 10.7.24 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities issues during operation Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 7228, 7865 No. 2 Our response Outcome
10.7.151 Other structures and utilities issue: objection to strengthening works to Hurlingham Wharf on the grounds of disruption; concern about tunnel collapse.
The strengthening works proposed to Hurlingham Wharf are N essential to the future use of the existing safeguarded wharf and are consistent with GLA policy. As described in the Build project information paper, our tunnel will be built using a closed face TBM. This type of machine is very secure and well tested in the clay soils such as those under Carnwath Road Riverside. The front section of the tunnel is fully supported by the shell of the machine itself and the reinforced concrete tunnel lining is erected in the machine as it moves forward. At no point in the process is the ground left unsupported. Our tunnel will also be built to comply with all appropriate regulations and policies and best practice, such as the British Standards. The work of the contractor building the tunnel will be subject to review and observation by independent supervisors. With these measures in place, tunnel collapse is an extremely remote possibility.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures proposed to address structures and utilities issues 10.7.152 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to measures to address structures and utilities issues during operation. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to address structures and utilities issues Table 10.7.25 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address structures and utilities issues during operation Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 7364 No. 1 Our response In order to avoid any impact on third party structures, including the Wimbledon to Kensal Green Tunnel, it was necessary to locate the permanent works west of Carnwath Road Industrial Estate, as set out in our phase two consultation materials. Outcome N
10.7.153 Location of permanent works, due to alignment and depth of the proposed Wimbledon to Kensal Green Cable Tunnel.
10-133
Townscape and visual

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to townscape and visual issues Table 10.7.26 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to townscape and visual issues during operation Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID 8493 No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted and welcomed.
10.7.154 Proposals will improve the image and character of the area.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual issues Table 10.7.27 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual issues during operation Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 9417LO, 9481LO, 7394, 7462, 7533, 7545, 7561, 7668, 7680, 7881, 7898, 8036 7526, 8022 7437, 7498, 7526, 7558, 7577, 7680, 7898, 8223 7533 No. 12 2 8 1 Our response The indicative site layout and visualisations are provided in our Carnwath Road Riverside site information paper and our Design project information paper sets out common design principles for each site including respecting the individual context and surroundings of each site. A preliminary assessment of the likely significant townscape and visual effects has also been undertaken and is presented in the PEIR (volume 13, section 11). The assessment concluded that the operational site would have beneficial effects on the character of the site and surrounding area and on views towards the site. Our approach to design has sought to preserve and enhance the character of the site and surrounding area. We have employed a process of iterative design and assessment. Our commitment to good design, coupled with the creation of a relatively large area of new public realm along the riverside, would lead to beneficial effects on the character of the local area. An assessment of likely significant effects of the final design on townscape character and views will be presented in our Environmental statement, which will form part of our DCO application. Outcome N N N N
10.7.155 Visual effect of permanent buildings and structures. 10.7.156 Effect of permanent structures and buildings on the character of the local area. 10.7.157 Effect of permanent structures and buildings on character of riverside/river frontage. 10.7.158 Effect of permanent structures and buildings on river views.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures proposed to address townscape and visual issues 10.7.159 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to measures to address townscape and visual issues during operation. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to address townscape and visual issues Table 10.7.28 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address townscape and visual issues during operation Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 8689 7673, 8689 7801 No. 1 2 1 Our response Outcome
10.7.160 More information is needed on mitigation of townscape and visual effects. 10.7.161 Mitigation proposed to address townscape and visual effects is inadequate/insufficient. 10.7.162 The permanent design and layout of the site should be in keeping with the setting and
A preliminary assessment of likely significant townscape and N visual effects has been undertaken and is presented in the PEIR (volume 13, section 11). A process of iterative design N and assessment is on-going and the projects commitment to good design will maximise beneficial effects on local N views and townscape character. This includes careful design of built structures and associated landscape design,
10-134
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns appearance of the local area.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response to ensure that they fit in with the character of the area. We are developing this further with a townscape and visual impact assessment as part of our environmental impact assessment which will be submitted with our DCO application. This will identify any likely significant effects of our proposed operational development, and any mitigation required to address such effects.
Outcome
Transport and access

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access issues Table 10.7.29 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access issues during operation Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID 8404 8493 No. 1 1 1 PLA Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
10.7.163 Support for the proposed Thames Path diversion. 10.7.164 Proposals will not result in, or significantly exacerbate traffic congestion. 10.7.165 Supportive/general comment: viability of the safeguarded wharf for cargo handling is maintained.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access issues Table 10.7.30 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access issues during operation Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. 3 Our response Our PEIR (volume 13, section 12) sets out a preliminary assessment of the likely significant transport effects of the operational phase of the development. A full Transport assessment is being prepared for submission as part of our DCO application. Our assessment will consider the cumulative effects of other strategic developments in the local area. As set out in our Carnwath Road site information paper, vehicles required for site maintenance would normally comprise of a small van every three to six months. Periodically (approximately every ten 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 low number of vehicles involved there is not considered to be a traffic effect. Outcome N
10.7.166 The potential transport effects will be greater 7342, 7751, 7780 than those set out in the consultation material. 10.7.167 It is not clear what the scale of transport effects will be; the assessment to date is very vague, for example junction improvements. 10.7.168 Maintenance traffic will cause traffic congestion at Carnwath Road/Wandsworth Bridge. 10.7.169 Maintenance traffic will exacerbate existing traffic congestion at Wandsworth/Putney Bridge. 10.7.170 Effect of maintenance traffic on the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and local residents. 10.7.171 Effect of maintenance traffic on residential amenity. 10.7.172 Cumulative transport effects arising from 7216, 7507, 7730, 7793
7285LO, 8046LO, 7147, 7216, 7361, 7478, 7526, 7549, 7920, 8210, 9089 7285LO, 7050, 7121, 7148, 7434, 7488, 7521, 7567, 7704, 8007 7491, 7691 7922, 7986 7147
11
10
2 2 1
N N N
10-135
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns other developments in the local area.
Respondent ID See annex C of this report 7199 7567
No. 2,024 1 1
Our response
Outcome N N N
10.7.173 Effect of traffic and vehicles required for site maintenance. 10.7.174 Effect of operational traffic on business amenity and operation. 10.7.175 Local roads should not be used during rush hour; presumably you will avoid 8am - 10am and 3pm - 7pm. 10.7.176 Local roads should not be used close to school opening and closing times. 10.7.177 More information is needed on operational transport effects including the type and number of vehicles, vehicle access and the type/amount of maintenance and renewal work likely to be needed. 10.7.178 Disruption to the use of the Thames Path caused by permanent works.
7507 7050, 7391, 7500, 8215, 8543
1 5
N N
7125
Once our works are complete we do not anticipate any N regular disruption to the use of the Thames Path. As detailed in our site information paper, it is acknowledged that there will be short period approximately every ten years when a diversion may be required to allow inspection and maintenance works. We would discuss the timing of the inspection/maintenance and any diversion with LBHF and ensure that appropriate signage is provided. Your comments are noted. N
10.7.179 Proposed permanent site access is unsuitable; the site should be accessed for maintenance from the river in order to avoid additional traffic and congestion on the already very busy roads in this area. 10.7.180 Loss of car parking will affect accessibility to local area and increase parking pressure.
7675, 7698, 7865
8684
Once our works are complete existing on-street car parking would be reinstated. Therefore there would not be a permanent loss of parking. We also anticipate that vehicles associated with site maintenance would park on site.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures proposed to address transport and access issues Table10.7.31 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures proposed to address transport and access issues during operation Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID 11014, 11026, 11067, 11068, 11073, 11082, 11090, 11112, 11113, 11134, 11136, 11137, 11139, 11154, 11157, 11171, 11227, 11299, 11307, 11324, 11336, 11349, 11363, 11378, 11434, 11435, 11478, 11480, 11484, 11489, 11494, 11509, 11521, 11531, 11533, 11573, 11593, 11600, 11605, 11629, No. 182 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
10.7.181 Mitigation proposed to address the issues is satisfactory.
10-136
Ref
Respondent ID No. 11630, 11642, 11645, 11675, 11724, 11731, 11739, 11742, 11743, 11757, 11779, 11787, 11802, 11815, 11860, 11862, 11874, 11876, 11888, 11928, 11935, 11952, 11957, 11958, 11989, 12009, 12014, 12016, 12022, 12050, 12055, 12092, 12107, 12109, 12116, 12124, 12127, 12128, 12164, 12184, 12188, 12189, 12201, 12222, 12225, 12230, 12245, 12265, 12268, 12291, 12294, 12298, 12317, 12330, 12342, 12358, 12360, 12372, 12384, 12385, 12395, 12412, 12416, 12428, 12438, 12471, 12496, 12547, 12554, 12558, 12561, 12562, 12588, 12607, 12609, 12619, 12623, 12652, 12656, 12658, 12662, 12686, 12720, 12726, 12728, 12729, 12735, 12742, 12745, 12754, 12756, 12766, 12777, 12781, 12785, 12791, 12806, 12847, 12885, 12887, 12907, 12910, 12916, 12921, 12927, 12932, 12934, 12935, 12956, 12983, 13001, 13012, 13013, 13016, 13040, 13079, 13100, 13102, 13106, 13129, 13140, 13148, 13188, 13214, 13216, 13217, 13223, 13233, 7147, 7371, 7403, 7413, 7462, 7540, 7704, 7997, 8043, 8199, 8635, 8755, 9024, LR13433
Our response
Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to address transport and access issues Table 10.7.32 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address transport and access issues during operation Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 7192, 7250, 7920 No. 3 Our response The operational effects of the site in terms of transport effects are negligible as set out in our PEIR (volume 13, section 12). Therefore we do not believe that it is necessary to provide any mitigation measures. This position will be reviewed as part of the process of preparing a Transport assessment for the site, and if this identifies significant operational transport effects then appropriate mitigation would be proposed. Outcome N
10.7.182 More information is needed on transport mitigation such as traffic and parking solutions and figures on junction improvements. 10.7.183 Mitigation proposed to address permanent transport and access issues is inadequate/insufficient: - the proposed widening of the junction is useless when there are single carriageways on all sides of the junction a bottleneck in the making. - junction improvements may increase the flow into Carnwath Road from the south but cannot otherwise affect the overall amount of traffic that the junction can
7121, 7127, 7129, 7558, 8241, 8543
10-137
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns handle.
Respondent ID 7125, 7228, 8075, 8888
No. 4
Our response If a Development Consent Order (DCO) is granted we would anticipate a series of requirements (similar to planning conditions) that would control the development. We expect that the requirements would secure the provision of the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental Statement that will be submitted with the application. We believe that the development of our proposed site will not preclude the future development of the Thames Path in this area. Our plans presented at phase two consultation show that the Thames Path would be reinstated along Carnwath Road and an additional length of footpath is proposed along Whiffin Wharf. It should be noted that Hurlingham Wharf is a safeguarded wharf which means we cannot do anything that would prejudice its future use as an operational wharf. Your comments are noted and will be taken into consideration in developing our designs for this site. Our PEIR (volume 13, section 12) sets out a preliminary assessment of the likely significant transport effects of the operational phase of the development. A full Transport assessment is being prepared for submission as part of our DCO application. Details of the site maintenance activities were set out in our site information paper. The maintenance works require access to the plant and structures and therefore it is not likely to be feasible to access these from the river. It is not currently part of our proposals to provide a permanent pier or new slipway on completion of our works. This is to ensure the operations of the adjacent safeguarded wharf are not affected by our proposals. In developing our proposals for this site we have been mindful of the wharf's safeguarded status, and our permanent works would not preclude utilisation of the wharf for cargo handling.
Outcome N
10.7.184 There is no guarantee that the mitigation proposed will be delivered.
10.7.185 Provide a suitable Thames Path on completion; the Thames Tunnel project and potential subsequent wharf will prevent the Thames Path from being implemented on these sites.
9417LO, 9481LO
10.7.186 Provide alternative site access; design maintenance access to accommodate landscaping. 10.7.187 Complete a transport assessment.
9423
7478
10.7.188 Use the river to undertake maintenance work, and for on-going site access.
8030
10.7.189 Provide a new modern pier/slipway as legacy of works.
8537
10.7.190 Permanent works on a safeguarded wharf must be minimised and not result in a diminution of the site's capacity for cargo handling; don't want increased highway capacity.
PLA, 8727
Water and flood risk

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to water and flood risk issues 10.7.191 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to water and flood risk issues during operation.
10-138
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk issues Table 10.7.33 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk issues during operation Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 8110 No. 1 Our response Outcome
10.7.192 Effect of permanent structures and operational activities on flood risk.
Our PEIR (volume 13, section 15) sets out a preliminary N assessment of likely significant effects on flood risk (level one) in line with the requirements of PPS25 and considers flooding from the sea (and tidal sources), rivers, land and surface water runoff, and groundwater. As set out in our PEIR the site is in Flood zone 3a where there is a high probability of flood risk. Our modelling to date indicates that the operational scheme would not require compensatory flood storage in this location. However, as our designs develop we will review the likely significant operational effects on flood risk to determine any requirements for storage. A level two flood risk assessment will be presented in the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application and will identify any appropriate mitigation. As our designs develop we will review the permanent effects on flood risk to determine any requirements for compensation or storage. We are carrying out fluvial modelling of the permanent foreshore works to establish the likely significant effects of the development on the river, and will discuss the findings with the PLA and the Environment Agency. We are also undertaking scour modelling. We do not believe that there will be significant erosion/scour to the river bed around campsheds, however our design incorporates mitigation measures to manage any permanent effects of our works on the river. N
10.7.193 Permanent structures will result in river erosion and scour.
EA
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to measures proposed to address water and flood risk issues 10.7.194 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to measures to address water and flood risk issues during operation. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to address water and flood risk issues Table 10.7.34 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions to address water and flood risk issues during operation Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID EA No. 1 Our response There will be no permanent encroachment onto the foreshore at Carnwath Road Riverside. Outcome N
10.7.195 Mitigation proposed to address the issues is inadequate/insufficient and placement of riprap or gabions should be avoided due to further encroachment on foreshore. 10.7.196 Other water mitigation, included: reducing the causes of scour or strengthening the existing defences themselves. Where this cannot be done, justification needs to be provided and encroachment caused by these strengthening options needs to be
EA
Your comments are noted. We are assessing the strength of the existing river defences at Carnwath Road Riverside and will undertake strengthening and improvement works to them if necessary to enable us to moor barges against them during the construction period.
10-139
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns mitigated and compensated for. We expect this information to be covered in the Environmental statement.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response
Outcome
10.8
10.8.1 10.8.2
Our view of the way forward

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 into account in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008. 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. Carnwath Road Riverside therefore remains our preferred site to drive the main tunnel to Acton Storm Tanks and receive the main tunnel from Kirtling Street; and to receive the Frogmore connection tunnel, driven from Dormay Street. Additionally, no new information or issues have been identified that would fundamentally change our proposals for this site. Therefore we will continue to develop the proposals for this site that we published at phase two consultation. 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 manage those 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 to refine 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 the layout and/or appearance of our proposals: replacement of the proposed ventilation building with a smaller fan structure and filters relocation of the permanent above ground structures to the eastern side of Whiffin Wharf where they will provide a buffer to the safeguarded Hurlingham Wharf, and a reduction in the height of these buildings from 9.5m to approximately 5.5m. This would enclose the plant and machinery (which require 3.5m of vertical working room) and necessary air flow above below the building roof relocation and redesign of the ventilation column so it is also located at the eastern edge of Whiffin Wharf and by the river provision of an area of landscaped open space in part of the western section of the site with a riverside walkway whether it would be possible to make further use of the river for the import of sand and aggregates for secondary tunnel lining in order to reduce the number of lorries on local roads.
10.8.3
10.8.4
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 consultation is appropriate. We do not consider that the degree of change in relation to this site or the effect on the local community would affect the nature of the comments received during phase two consultation in such a way as to require further consultation. On that basis, a round of targeted consultation on our proposals for this site is not considered necessary. We will progress with preparation of our application for a development consent order and will incorporate the changes referred to in paragraph 10.8.3 if further work demonstrates that this is appropriate. We intend to 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 and the accompanying documents.
10-140

Supp Report On P2 Consultation - Chapter 10 Carnwath Road Riverside

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supp Report On P2 Consultation - Chapter 10 Carnwath Road Riverside

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

10 Carnwath Road Riverside

Thames Tunnel Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Supplementary report on phase two consultationReport Template

10 Carnwath Road Riverside

Supplementary report on phase two consultationReport Template

10 Carnwath Road Riverside

Supplementary report on phase two consultationReport Template

10 Carnwath Road Riverside

Supplementary report on phase two consultationReport Template

10 Carnwath Road Riverside

Supplementary report on phase two consultationReport Template

10 Carnwath Road Riverside

Supplementary report on phase two consultationReport Template

10 Carnwath Road Riverside

Carnwath Road Riverside

Structure of this chapter

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

10 Carnwath Road Riverside

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

10 Carnwath Road Riverside

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

10 Carnwath Road Riverside

7758, 7781, 8280, 8742 7839, 8289

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

10 Carnwath Road Riverside

10.3.15 10.3.16 10.3.17

7124, 7754 7762 7251, 7275

13015, 7997, 8118 13483

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

10 Carnwath Road Riverside

Supportive and neutral comments

10.3.23 10.3.24 10.3.25 10.3.26

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

10 Carnwath Road Riverside

EH, 9434LO, 7777, 7975, 8098, 9253

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

10 Carnwath Road Riverside

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

10 Carnwath Road Riverside

Objections, issues and concerns

See annex C of this report

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

10 Carnwath Road Riverside

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

10 Carnwath Road Riverside

See paragraph 103.3.57 for our response to these feedback comments.

12539, 13395, 7673, 7968, 9461

9400LO, 11056, 12371, 13020, 13133,

The sites on which we have consulted were identified through an

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

10 Carnwath Road Riverside

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

10 Carnwath Road Riverside

10.3.46 10.3.47 10.3.48

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

10 Carnwath Road Riverside

Objections, issues and concerns

Refer to paragraph 2.5.18 for our response to this feedback comment.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

10 Carnwath Road Riverside