Supp Report On P2 Consultation - Chapter 15 Heathwall Pumping Station

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

Chapter 15 Heathwall Pumping Station
15 Heathwall Pumping Station
Thames Tunnel Supplementary report on phase two consultation

List of contents Page number 15 Heathwall Pumping Station ........................................................................ 15-1 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6 15.7 15.8 Introduction ......................................................................................... 15-1 Number of respondents ...................................................................... 15-2 Site selection ...................................................................................... 15-2 Alternative sites .................................................................................. 15-4 Management of construction works .................................................... 15-4 Permanent design and appearance .................................................. 15-17 Management of operational effects .................................................. 15-22 Our view of the way forward ............................................................. 15-29
List of tables Page number Table 15.2.1 Number of respondents commenting on Heathwall Pumping Station ....................................................................................................... 15-2 Table 15.3.1 Views on whether Heathwall Pumping Station should be our preferred site (Q2).......................................................................................... 15-3 Table 15.3.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the selection of our preferred site ........................................................................ 15-3 Table 15.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the selection of our preferred site .................................................................................. 15-3 Table 15.3.4 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to shortlisted sites ................................................................................................ 15-4 Table 15.4.1 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites ............................. 15-4 Table 15.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q4a) ............................................................... 15-5 Table 15.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q4b) ................................................................................. 15-5 Table 15.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction ................................ 15-6 Table 15.5.4 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction ......................................................................... 15-7 Table 15.4.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout ....................................................................................... 15-7 Table 15.4.6 Suggestions for construction site design and layout ....................... 15-8 Table 15.4.7 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction ......................................................................... 15-8 Table 15.4.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction ...................... 15-9 Table 15.4.9 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction ..................................................... 15-10 Table 15.4.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development during construction.................................................. 15-11 Table 15.4.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during construction ....................................................................... 15-11 Table 15.4.12 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions for addressing socioeconomic effects during construction ........................................... 15-13
Table 15.4.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during construction ....................................................................... 15-13 Table 15.4.14 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access during construction .................................................... 15-14 Table 15.4.15 Objections, issues and concerns relating to transport and access issues during construction ............................................................ 15-14 Table 15.4.16 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction ....................................................................... 15-16 Table 15.4.17 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction ....................................................................... 15-17 Table 15.6.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right issues that have influenced our permanent design for this site? (Q5) ..................... 15-18 Table 15.6.2 Please give us your views about our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site (Q6) ....................................... 15-18 Table 15.6.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site ............................. 15-19 Table 15.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site ........................................................... 15-19 Table 15.6.5 Design suggestions ...................................................................... 15-20 Table 15.7.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q7a) ............................................................. 15-22 Table 15.7.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q7b) ............................................................................... 15-23 Table 15.7.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation .. 15-24 Table 15.7.4 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour during operation .......................................................... 15-24 Table 15.7.5 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation ...................................................................................... 15-24 Table 15.7.6 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation ........................................................................... 15-24 Table 15.7.7 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation..................................... 15-25 Table 15.7.8 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation ......................................................... 15-25
Table 15.7.9 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on planning and development during operation ........................................................................... 15-26 Table 15.7.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during operation ........................................................................... 15-26 Table 15.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during operation ........................................................................... 15-27 Table 15.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during operation ........................................................................... 15-28 Table 15.7.13 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address transport and access effects during operation ...................................................................................... 15-28 Table 15.7.14 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during operation ........................................................................... 15-28
15
15.1
15.1.1 15.1.2
Heathwall Pumping Station

Introduction
This chapter covers the feedback comments received during phase two consultation regarding our preferred site Heathwall Pumping Station. This site would be used to connect two existing local combined sewer overflows (CSOs), known as the Heathwall Pumping Station CSO and the South West Storm Relief CSO, to the main tunnel. At phase one consultation, Tideway Walk was presented as our preferred site to connect Heathwall Pumping Station CSO and South West Storm Relief to the main tunnel. However, Tideway Walk is no longer available for use because a planning permission for residential development has been approved and construction works have started on site. Following a reassessment of potential sites, Heathwall Pumping Station was identified as the preferred site to intercept the Heathwall Pumping Station CSO and the South West Storm Relief CSO and presented at phase two consultation. For further information regarding the proposals for this site at phase two consultation, refer to the Heathwall Pumping Station site information paper. This chapter also presents feedback on an alternative shortlisted site to Heathwall Pumping Station, which was identified at phase two consultation. This is Foreshore, adjacent to Heathwall Pumping Station, Nine Elms Lane (site 1). Where feedback comments were received on this shortlisted site, they are presented in section 15.3 (site selection) and section 15.4 (alternative sites).
15.1.3 15.1.4
Structure of this chapter

15.1.5 This chapter is organised as listed below, which reflects the structure of the phase two consultation feedback form: 15.1.6 Section 15.2 Number of respondents section 15.3 Site selection section 15.4 Alternative sites section 15.5 Management of construction works section 15.6 Permanent design and appearance section 15.7 Management of operational effects. section 15.8 Our view of the way forward.
In sections 15.3 to 15.7 we 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.
15.1.7
A full list of the phase two consultation material is set out in Annex A to this report. Where a response contains a reference to our website, go to www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk for further information, or to access the documents referenced.
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.
15-1
15.2
15.2.1
Number of respondents
A total of 20 respondents provided feedback comments on Heathwall Pumping Station, of which seven were received after the close of phase two consultation. Table 15.2.1 sets out the different groups who provided feedback for this site. Table 15.2.1 Number of respondents commenting on Heathwall Pumping Station Statutory consultees 6 respondents - Design Council CABE (CABE) - Consumer Council for Water (CCW) - English Heritage (EH) - Environment Agency (EA) - Greater London Authority (GLA) - Port of London Authority (PLA). Local authorities 1 respondent - London Borough of Wandsworth (LBW). Landowners 0 respondents Community consultees 13 respondents Petitions 0 petitions
15.2.2
Feedback on this site was received in a number of forms, including feedback forms and correspondence (emails and letters).
15.3
15.3.1
Site selection
A series of sites is required in order to build and operate the Thames Tunnel project. To determine our preferred scheme, we are undertaking a site selection process, using a methodology that was adopted after consultation with the relevant local authorities and statutory consultees. For further information on our methodology and process, refer to: Site selection project information paper, which sets out the process we followed to find and select our preferred sites Site selection methodology paper, which details the methodology used to select construction sites along the route of the main tunnel Site selection background technical paper, which provides supporting technical information to the Site selection methodology paper such as the engineering requirements for the size of construction sites.
15.3.2
The results of the site selection process up to phase two consultation are set out in: Site information papers, which provide summary information on each of our preferred sites, including the reasons for selecting them Phase two scheme development report, which describes how our proposals for the Thames Tunnel project have evolved and provides a detailed account of the site selection process for each of the preferred sites.
15.3.3
In this section, we set out the feedback comments received in relation to the selection of Heathwall Pumping Station 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 M of the Design development report and our PEIR (volume 18). Where respondents commented on matters relating to management of construction works, permanent design and appearance or the management of operational effects at Heathwall Pumping Station, these comments are reported in section 15.5 to 15.7.
15.3.4
Number of respondents
15.3.5 During phase two consultation, respondents were asked to comment on the decision to select Heathwall Pumping Station as our preferred site to intercept the Heathwall Pumping Station and South West Storm Relief CSOs (see question 2 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). Table 15.3.1 sets out details of the different groups who responded and were asked to select supportive, opposed/concerned or dont know/unsure. Tables 15.3.2 and 15.3.3 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.
15-2
Table 15.3.1 Views on whether Heathwall Pumping Station should be our preferred site (Q2) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 0 0 5 0 5 3 1 1 3 1 1 Supportive Opposed/concerned Dont know/unsure
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to our preferred site Table 15.3.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the selection of our preferred site Ref 15.3.6 15.3.7 Supportive and neutral comments Support the use of the preferred site. The preferred site is more suitable than the shortlisted site in order to reduce the adverse impacts on archaeology. Agree that Heathwall Pumping Station CSO and South West Storm Relief CSO need to be intercepted, and that Heathwall Pumping Station site is a suitable location from which to do so. Qualified support for the preferred site included that the PLA has no in principle objections in terms of navigational safety. Respondent ID GLA, LR9447 EH No. 2 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
15.3.8
LBW
15.3.9
PLA, 7442
Your feedback is noted.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to our preferred site Table 15.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the selection of our preferred site Ref 15.3.10 Objections, issues and concerns Selection of this preferred site has been poorly justified/inadequately explained; clarification as to the need for the Kirtling Street site and an explanation as to why the Heathwall site cannot suffice for both development proposals. English Heritage would prefer to see the Heathwall site only used if this were possible. Respondent ID EH No. 1 Our response We believe that our assessments, which have been carried out in accordance with the Site selection methodology paper, are comprehensively explained in appendix M of the Phase two scheme development report. Based on our assessment we consider that, on balance, Heathwall Pumping Station is the most suitable. This is because it allows us to intercept both CSOs in one site and uses land that we already own. There is also good access off Nine Elms Lane (A3205) and the area is largely industrial, therefore minimising potential likely significant effects on the local residential community. As set out in the consultation material, given that Tideway Walk is no longer available as a potential site, the Heathwall Pumping Station site is not large enough to accommodate a CSO interception and single/double
15-3
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns
Respondent ID
No.
Our response drive. It is therefore not possible to combine these uses into one site.
Shortlisted sites
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the shortlisted site Table 15.3.4 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to shortlisted sites Ref 15.3.1 Supportive and neutral comments The impact of the shortlisted sites is similar although it is noted that the foreshore site is likely to be more expensive. Respondent ID GLA No. 15.4 1 Our response Based on our assessment we consider that, on balance, Heathwall Pumping Station is the most suitable. This is because it allows us to intercept both CSOs in one site and uses land that we already own. There is also good access off Nine Elms Lane (A3205) and the area is largely industrial, therefore minimising potential likely significant effects on the local residential community. For further details on the results of the site selection process, refer to appendix M of the Phase two scheme development report.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the shortlisted site 15.4.1 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the shortlisted site.
15.4
15.4.1
Alternative sites
During phase two consultation, respondents were invited to suggest alternative sites that they thought should be used to intercept the Heathwall Pumping Station and South West Storm Relief CSOs instead of Heathwall Pumping Station (see question 3 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). No alternative sites were suggested. Respondents made the following comments regarding the availability and identification of alternative sites: Supportive and neutral feedback comments Table 15.4.1 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites Ref 15.4.2 Supportive and neutral comments No alternative site is available; Thames Water has done their best to survey alternative sites. Respondent ID 7404 No. 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed
Objections, issues and concerns 15.4.3 No objections, issues and concerns were raised regarding the availability and identification of alternative sites.
15.5
15.5.1 15.5.2
Management of construction works

This section sets out feedback comments received during phase two consultation in relation to the management of construction works at Heathwall Pumping Station. This includes the identification of site specific issues arising from construction activities and proposals for addressing these issues. During phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with Heathwall Pumping Station 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 15.5.1 and 15.5.2. Tables 15.5.3 to 15.5.17 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.
15-4
Table 15.5.1 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 0 0 4 0 4 2 1 1 2 1 1 Yes No Dont know/unsure
Table 15.5.2 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 15.5.3 Number of respondents Total 0 0 0 5 0 5 2 3 0 2 3 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 Heathwall Pumping Station during construction and our proposals to address these issues. Comments are organised under common themes. The themes are: General themes: General comments on key issues General comments measures to address the key issues
Topic-based themes Air quality and odour Construction working hours and programme Construction site design and layout Historic environment Land quality and contamination Lighting Natural environment (aquatic) Natural environment (terrestrial) Noise and vibration Open space and recreation Planning and development Socio-economic Structures and utilities Townscape and visual Transport and access Water and flood risk
15-5
General feedback comments on the identified key issues

Supportive and neutral feedback comments on the identified key issues 15.5.4 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to general comments on the key issues during construction. Objections, issues and concerns on the identified key issues 15.5.5 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to general comments the key issues during construction.
General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues 15.5.6 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to general comments on the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues Table 15.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction Ref 15.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns More information on measures to address issues is needed. Respondent ID 9337 No. 1 Our response Outcome
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, which is consistent with the guidance provided by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in their guidance on pre-application consultation. Information on proposed measures to address issues can be found in the Preliminary environmental information report (PEIR) (volume 18). Measures proposed to address potential 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 part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. We have sought to avoid or eliminate potential likely N significant effects wherever possible, both 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 Code of construction practice (CoCP) which will set out how we would manage our construction sites in order to minimise disruption to nearby communities. Measures proposed to address potential likely significant effects are being further developed and considered as part of the environmental impact assessment.
15.5.8
Construction impacts must be minimised at every stage of construction.
GLA
15-6
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.
Outcome
Air quality and odour

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour 15.5.9 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to air quality and odour during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour 15.5.10 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to air quality and odour during construction. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour 15.5.11 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of quality and odour during construction. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour Table 15.5.4 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction Ref 15.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns The GLA and London Council's Best Practice Guidance (BPG) The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition should be implemented. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response 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 that we would need to comply with, 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. Outcome N
Construction working hours and programme

15.5.13 No feedback comments were received in relation to construction working hours and programme.
Construction site design and layout

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction site design and layout 15.5.14 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to construction site design and layout. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout Table 15.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout Ref 15.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns Extent of construction site comments included: - site boundary needs to be confirmed - red line should be re-drawn inland as far Respondent ID PLA, 9337 No. 2 Our response Our site area, as set out in the phase two consultation site information paper, will be reviewed in order to take into account any design development that has occurred. The site boundary in our DCO application will only be as large as Outcome N
15-7
Ref 15.5.16
Objections, issues and concerns as possible away from the riverside. Requests for more information on construction design included: - shared storage volumes on site - requirements for temporary ventilation structures.
Respondent ID 9337
No. 1
Our response necessary in order to construct the works. The detail of the construction layout, including storage volumes and ventilation arrangements would be developed by the contractor, and may differ from those shown in the consultation material provided that any likely significant environmental effects are managed and that the main construction activities are located within the site boundary included in our DCO application. We will carry out a navigational risk assessment for this site, which will form part of our DCO application, and we will discuss the findings with the PLA.
Outcome N
15.5.17
Concerned about the location/existence of the cofferdam.
13470
Suggestions for construction site design and layout Table 15.5.6 Suggestions for construction site design and layout Ref 15.5.18 Suggestions for construction site design and layout Specific design amendment; consider relocating the shaft to the east. Respondent ID 9337 No. 1 Our response The drop shaft for Heathwall Pumping Station cannot be located to the east of the new foreshore structure because there is an existing buried outfall (four pipes side by side) that must be kept operational. Outcome N
Historic environment
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment 15.5.19 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the historic environment during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment 15.5.20 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the historic environment during construction. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment 15.5.21 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment Table 15.5.7 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction Ref 15.5.22 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on mitigation. Respondent ID EH No. 1 Our response Outcome
An assessment of the likely significant effects on the historic N environment is being completed as part of our environmental impact assessment. We are consulting with English Heritage as part of this process. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Additionally, our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) sets out a range of measures to safeguard the historic environment during construction. Such measures
15-8
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome include confirmation that works close to listed buildings would be undertaken in accordance with all requirements set out in the DCO 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 LBW prior to undertaking works and would continue to engage with them closely on the planning of the works.
Land quality and contamination

15.5.23 No feedback comments were received in relation to land quality and contamination during construction.
Lighting
15.5.24 No feedback comments were received in relation to lighting during construction.
Natural environment (aquatic)

15.5.25 No feedback comments were received in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction.
Natural environment (terrestrial)

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) 15.5.26 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 15.5.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Ref 15.5.27 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on the effect of construction activities on the natural environment. Respondent ID LR9491 No. 1 Our response Outcome
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. This included our PEIR (volume 18, section 6) which sets out our initial assessment of likely significant effects on terrestrial ecology including activity by construction workers and machinery, including works in the foreshore that would create noise, light and vibration. There would be barge movements to and from the site and 24-hour working associated with excavation of the connection tunnel. 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 part of our environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as 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.
15-9
Ref 15.5.28
Objections, issues and concerns Thames Water should consider the importance of any existing buildings for protected species.
Respondent ID LR9447
No. 1
Our response Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects on wildlife associated with the construction of the tunnel is contained in our PEIR (volume 18, section 6) and identifies the existing buildings on the site, noting that these appear in good condition and are considered to be sub-optimal for bats. The significance of effects of the development on habitats will be assessed and reported in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of the application.
Outcome N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) 15.5.29 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 15.5.9 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Ref 15.5.30 15.5.31 Objections, issues and concerns Locate construction activities within the site to avoid sensitive and designated areas. Other issues and concerns raised in relation to mitigation of the natural environment included: - maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity through an effective mitigation package - should take steps to secure the long-term protection of any protected species which may be impacted. Respondent ID LR9491 LR9447, LR9491 No. 1 2 Our response All construction activities would be contained within our proposed construction site. Details of proposed mitigation measures and initial ecology surveys for the site were set out in the PEIR (volume 18, section 6) as part of our phase two consultation. As we have completed our surveys, we have confirmed the presence or absence of species and habitats and developed mitigation measures as necessary. A range of measures that would be implemented to control and limit disturbance. 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 part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Outcome N N
Noise and vibration

15.5.32 No feedback comments were received in relation to noise and vibration during construction.
Open space and recreation

15.5.33 No feedback comments were received in relation to open space and recreation during construction.
Planning and development

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to planning and development 15.5.34 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to planning and development during construction.
15-10
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development Table 15.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development during construction Ref 15.5.35 Objections, issues and concerns Effect on the safeguarded Middle Wharf. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response Our proposals for the site would not affect Middle Wharf's safeguarded status. The wharf offers the opportunity to use the river to transport materials from the site during construction, which is consistent with GLA policy. Once construction is complete, the wharf would be returned to operational use. Outcome N
15.5.36
Conflict with emerging regeneration proposals/future developments including the Northern Line extension. Proposals will impact on local regeneration in the Vauxhall Nine Elms Opportunity Area.
7442
15.5.37
GLA
Our site is located within operational Thames Water land at N the Heathwall Pumping Station and the adjacent Middle Wharf. Therefore, our construction works are consistent with both its existing uses and site allocations. In addition, as part N of our permanent proposals, we would provide an additional area of riverside public space, which would contribute positively to the regeneration of the area and complement surrounding redevelopments. 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, including the new American Embassy along Nine Elms Lane (A3205) and the Battersea Power Station C redevelopment. N
15.5.38
Compatibility with existing planning permission adjacent to/in the vicinity of the site, in particular the American Embassy and Battersea Power Station. Cumulative effect of other developments, in particular Battersea Power Station/Northern line extension/American Embassy. Cumulative effect of other developments in particular Battersea Power Station/Northern line extension/American Embassy.
9337
15.5.39
7442
15.5.40
7442
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development 15.5.41 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development during construction. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development 15.5.42 No objections, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development during construction.
Socio-economic
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects 15.5.43 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation socio-economic effects during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects Table 15.5.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during construction Ref 15.5.44 15.5.45 Objections, issues and concerns Temporary business relocation and associated effects. Detrimental effect on business operations of Respondent ID GLA GLA, LR9154, LR9270 No. 1 3 Our response We are preparing a socio-economic impact assessment that will examine the likely significant effects of the proposed development on local business operations. A full assessment will be provided in the Environmental statement Outcome N C
15-11
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns the Battersea Barge.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response that will be submitted as part of our DCO application. We are also engaging with the owners of Battersea Barge as our proposals develop. As part of our environmental impact assessment and design development, we are examining ways in which we could manage the effect of our construction works on the Nine Elms Pier boat community and reduce the area of our site in the River Thames.
Outcome
15.5.46
Effect of construction activities on residential amenity.
GLA, 9337
Our PEIR (volume 18, section 10) provides a preliminary N assessment of the likely significant effects of the scheme on a range of topics including noise and vibration; air quality (including dust emissions) and odour; and transport, based on a methodology that has been agreed with the LBW. 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 part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. We are also preparing a Health impact assessment that will examine the likely significant effects of the proposed development on human health and well-being and possible effects in the population. The findings of this study will inform the design for this site as well as mitigation measures to address any significant effects. We do not believe that our works would require the relocation of homes. Our PEIR (volume 18, section 10) provides a preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the project on residential amenity and concludes that there may be significant effects. However, we do not anticipate any re-housing as a result of our proposals. 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 recommend mitigation measures, in addition to those set out in our CoCP, required to address any significant effects. 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 18, section 10). We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, N
15.5.47
Proposals will require relocation of homes and cause population displacement.
GLA
15.5.48
More information is needed on socioeconomic effects.
9337
15-12
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response 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 part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.
Outcome
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects 15.5.49 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during construction. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects Table 15.5.12 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions for addressing socio-economic effects during construction Ref 15.5.50 Objections, issues and concerns Other issues and concerns raised in relation to mitigation of socio-economic issues included: - manage the works in a way that allows the 'Battersea Barge' to operate successfully - suitable relocation of any affected house boats. Respondent ID GLA, LBW, LR9154 No. 3 Our response We do not believe that it would be necessary to relocate any of the residential vessels at Nine Elms Pier. However, we will complete a full environmental impact assessment and submit an Environmental statement with our DCO application. We will also continue to discuss our proposals with the residents. We would need to relocate the Battersea Barge a short distance along the river wall during the works, however we intend that the restaurant would continue to operate during the works. Outcome N
Structures and utilities

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to structures and utilities 15.5.51 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to structures and utilities during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities Table 15.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during construction Ref 15.5.52 Objections, issues and concerns Structural damage to other structures arising from construction activities. Respondent ID 9337 No. 1 Our response Our Settlement project information paper provides information on our approach to controlling and limiting ground movement, which can cause settlement, associated with construction of the tunnel. It is acknowledged that construction of the tunnel would cause some small movements in the ground, the level of which would depend on a range of factors including the 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 under London, minimise the likelihood of any potential ground movement. We are assessing the potential likely significant effects of ground movement in advance of the works and, where necessary, would carry out protective measures. We Outcome N
15-13
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome would also monitor actual ground movement during and after the tunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted. We would also carry out a defects survey on buildings located over, or close to, our tunnels and worksites where we consider this necessary. 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 due to our construction works taking place nearby, disturbance compensation may be available as detailed in our Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on structures and utilities 15.5.53 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during construction. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on structures and utilities 15.5.54 No objections, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities issues during construction.
Townscape and visual

15.5.55 No feedback comments were received in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction.
Transport and access

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access Table 15.5.14 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access during construction Ref 15.5.56 Objections, issues and concerns Support proposed use of barges to transport materials. Respondent ID PLA No. 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access Table 15.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns relating to transport and access issues during construction Ref 15.5.57 Objections, issues and concerns Disruption to the use of the Thames Path caused by construction works or diversion. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response The Thames Path currently runs along Nine Elms Lane (A3205) in this location. We do not propose to divert the Thames Path, however construction traffic would need to cross the Thames Path and arrangements would be made to ensure this could be done safely. Outcome N
15.5.58
Construction traffic will cause traffic congestion and particular concern about effect on Battersea Park Road, especially when the cumulative effects of proposed development of Battersea Power Station/Northern line extension/American Embassy are taken into account.
7442, LR9270
At this site we propose to use barges to bring in and take N away material used to fill the cofferdam. This is expected to reduce the number of lorry visits to/from this site by approximately 15 per cent. Road access to this site would be from existing access points on Nine Elms Lane (A3205), as illustrated in the Heathwall Pumping Station site information paper. It is
15-14
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response expected that at the peak of construction (years one and two), an average of 28 lorries would visit (travelling to and from) the site each working day, as indicated in the PEIR (volume 18, section 12). We are reviewing the proposed routes that construction traffic would use as part of our transport assessment, which will also assess cumulative transport effects of traffic associated with other developments in the local area. We would agree which developments would be assessed with Transport for London (TfL) and local highways authorities. If the transport assessment identifies any likely significant effects arising from congestion we would develop mitigation measures to minimise any disruption, which may include bringing most materials in and out of the site during non-peak periods. In addition, we will examine cumulative impacts of transport volumes from other developments in the area as part of our Environmental statement. 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 would be carefully controlled in order to minimise any potential 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. We would design site accesses and operate all of our construction sites to ensure that they meet 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 requirements for a Traffic management plan to ensure that construction traffic would be carefully controlled in order to minimise any potential 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 would be a requirement to ensure that the proposals do not endanger safe school access. The transport assessment will also review data relating to recent accidents. 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. As part of our PEIR (volume 18, section 12) we assessed the construction transport effects on pedestrian and cycle routes; bus and other public transport routes and patronage; parking; and highway layout, operation and
Outcome
15.5.59
Effect of construction traffic on road safety.
GLA
15.5.60
Cumulative transport effects arising from 7442 other developments in the local area including concern about the effect on Battersea Park Road, especially in combination with the
15-15
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns development of Battersea Power Station/Northern line extension/American Embassy.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome capacity as well as the effects on residential amenity. As part of the assessment we have considered the effects of lorry and (where applicable) barge transport, based on a methodology that has been discussed and agreed with the LBW 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 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.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access 15.5.61 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access Table 15.5.16 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction Ref 15.5.62 15.5.63 Objections, issues and concerns Provide a suitable and safe Thames Path diversion with good quality signage. Undertake fluvial modelling to identify potential effects of river transport and associated structures on river flows. Respondent ID GLA PLA No. 1 1 Our response We do not propose any footpath diversions at this site. 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. Outcome N N
15.5.64
Undertake a navigational assessment to identify potential effects of river transport on river users and structures. Use the river to transport more/all construction materials and spoil. At this site as the safeguarded wharf is not currently in use there is no need to re-provide a wharf during construction. Use the river rather than roads to transport construction materials and excavated material.
PLA
We are preparing a Navigational risk assessment as part of N 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. We intend to use the river to bring in and take away C material used to fill the cofferdam, as detailed in our site information paper. However, it is not generally practical and cost-effective to transport all materials by barge so we would still need to transport some materials by road. At this site, use of barges would remove approximately 1,200 C lorries from the road during the construction. We will consider opportunities to integrate of our works with other projects in the local area and will continue to liaise with the developers as well as the LBW. We are also considering options to transport more materials by river. Comments in relation to re-provision of the wharf during construction are welcomed. We are considering options to use rail to transport C
15.5.65
GLA, PLA, LR9236, LR9270
15.5.66
7442
15.5.67
Use rail to transport construction materials
7442
15-16
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns and excavated material.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response materials to/from this site. However, there is no direct rail access at this site and any material would need to be transferred by road to/from a local railhead, such as Stewarts Lane, which means that there would still be traffic on local roads.
Outcome
15.5.68
Other issues and concerns were raised in relation to transport and access mitigation included: - existing and consented cargo handling capacity must either be accommodated within the worksite or relocated - movement of materials both in and out of the site must be minimised.
PLA, LBW
Middle Wharf is currently a vacant site and therefore our N works would not affect the existing cargo handling. The location of our permanent works would not affect the use of Middle Wharf as a safeguarded wharf.
Water and flood risk

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to water and flood risk 15.5.69 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 15.5.70 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to water and flood risk during construction. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk 15.5.71 No supportive or neutral feedback 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 the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk Table 15.5.17 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction Ref 15.5.72 Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. 1 Our response We have carried out fluvial modelling of the permanent and temporary foreshore works. The permanent and temporary works have been designed so as to minimise scour. Where significant scour is predicted we would carry out preventative measures (such as placing riprap on the river bed), and in all locations the riverbed would be monitored and remedial works carried out if/as required. Riprap presents a change in habitat rather than a loss of habitat. This will be covered in the Environmental statement to be submitted with our DCO application. Outcome N
Other water mitigation, ensure that the design GLA does not cause siltation, erosion or other hydrological impacts.
15.6
15.6.1 15.6.2
Permanent design and appearance

This section sets out feedback comments received during phase two consultation relating to proposals for the permanent design and appearance of buildings and structures at Heathwall Pumping Station that are required for the operation of the tunnel when it is in use (the operational phase). During 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 Heathwall Pumping Station (see question 5 of the phase two feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The first part of question 5 asked respondents to select agree, disagree or dont know/unsure about the site specific issues identified. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in the table below.
15-17
Table 15.6.1 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 15.6.3 Number of respondents Total 0 0 0 3 0 3 3 0 0 3 Yes No Dont know/unsure
As part of the phase two consultation, respondents were also asked to comment on proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the buildings and structures at Heathwall Pumping Station (see question 6 of the phase two feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). Three respondents answered this question, all of whom were supportive of the proposals; none were opposed. Table 15.6.2 provides a breakdown of responses. The first part of question 6 asked respondents to select supportive, opposed or dont know/unsure about our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in the table below. Table 15.6.2 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 0 0 3 0 3 3 0 0 3 Supportive Opposed Dont know/unsure
15.6.4 15.6.5
The following sections set out the comments received from respondents in connection with proposals for the permanent design and appearance of buildings and structures at Heathwall Pumping Station. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments provided feedback to the first part of questions 5 and 6. Feedback comments are organised under the following sub-headings: supportive and neutral comments objections, issues and concerns design suggestions.
15.6.6
Where respondents commented on matters arising during the operational phase and the management of these effects (whether through design or by other means), these comments are reported in section 15.7.
15-18
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Table 15.6.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Ref 15.6.7 15.6.8 15.6.9 15.6.10 Supportive and neutral comments The design/proposals are good. The proposals are in keeping with the local area. Proposals will create a new area of public/open space. Support for specific design features included: - Thames Path improvements - enabling Middle Wharf to be a working wharf - suggestion that the space could reveal the alignment of the tunnel through its surface treatment - intention to give the promontory wall a robust foreshore character - proposals recognise the relationship between the promontory and the pumping station. Other supportive comments included that Thames Water has to do what is necessary for the benefit of all concerned. Respondent ID 7404, 7442 7442 LBW (LR)CABE, GLA, 7442 No. 2 1 1 3 Our response Your comments are noted and welcomed.
15.6.11
7404
Your comments are noted.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Table 15.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Ref 15.6.12 15.6.13 Objections, issues and concerns Effect on the image of the local area. Design will create opportunities for crime and anti-social behaviour. Respondent ID LBW LBW No. 1 1 Our response Your comments are noted and will be taken into consideration in developing our designs for this site. We do not believe that our proposals would create new opportunities for crime and anti-social behaviour. Currently the site has restricted access, and our proposals would enhance opportunities for natural surveillance. Our PEIR (volume 18, section 15) sets out a preliminary assessment of 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. 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. Outcome N N
15.6.14
Design proposals will result in increased flood risk.
EA
15-19
Design suggestions
Table 15.6.5 Design suggestions Ref 15.6.15 Design suggestions Design should incorporate appropriate screening. Respondent ID 7801 No. 1 Our response Outcome
Your comments are noted and will be taken into N consideration where possible in developing our proposals for this site. However, design proposals for this site must be compatible with its continuing use as a safeguarded wharf and with the adjacent Riverlight development. We would seek to minimise the area required for our permanent works. Your comments are noted and will be taken into consideration. We will consider whether it is possible to include more planting and landscaping as part of the project. However, design proposals for this site must be compatible with its continuing use as a safeguarded wharf and with the adjacent Riverlight development. We would seek to minimise the area required for our permanent works. N
15.6.16
Design should provide suitable/more/ adequate landscaping and planting.
7801
15.6.17
Specific design amendments included: - extent of permanent land take
EA, GLA, (LR)CABE, LBW, LR9491
Your comments are noted and will be taken into N consideration where possible in developing our proposals for this site. However, design proposals for this site must be compatible with its continuing use as a safeguarded wharf and with the adjacent Riverlight development. We would seek to minimise the area required for our permanent works. Your comments are noted and will be taken into N consideration where possible in developing our proposals for this site. Our PEIR (volume 18, section 4) concludes that no significant effects are predicted in relation to odour when the tunnel is operational. The ventilation facilities would be arranged to minimise the release of untreated air from the tunnel system and for approximately 99 per cent of the average year, air released from the tunnel would be treated and would not have any odours. We note that there is no mechanical plant associated with the proposed odour control system at this site. Your comments are noted and will be taken into N consideration where possible in developing our proposals for this site. Design proposals for this site must be compatible with both its continuing use as a safeguarded wharf and with the adjacent Riverlight development. We will also take account of the future regeneration of the area and seek to minimise the area required for our permanent works. The site contains existing sewer infrastructure essential for N
- ensure that the location and design of the ventilation plant would minimise any noise/odour impacts on nearby residents including future redevelopments
- ensure that re-instatement works minimise the impact on the regeneration of the area including the sites development potential
- investigate the options to relocate, build
15-20
Ref
Design suggestions above, or around the pumping station building - consider a continuous grading to the ramp with level intervals to one side that would allow people to pause along its length - works to the pumping station and public realm should also address the relationship to Nine Elms Lane, and improve access to the Thames Path from the highway
- should anticipate all potential operational
Respondent ID
No.
Our response the area. Any proposals for its relocation or to build above/around are outside the scope of the project.
Outcome
Your comments are noted and will be taken into N consideration where possible in developing our proposals for this site. However, design proposals for this site must be compatible with its continuing use as a safeguarded wharf and with the adjacent Riverlight development. This includes N the proposals for a riverside walkway.
formats for Middle Wharf, including the requirement for conveyors and silos, by engaging with the GLA and others to help ensure that the proposals can adapt to the needs of this safeguarded facility without undermining efforts to secure public access to the foreshore. 15.6.18 Other issues and concerns in relation to design mitigation included: - final site access junction design from Nine Elms Lane will need to be agreed with TfL - some indication has been given to the after use of construction sites (LR)CABE, GLA, 9337 3
We note your comments regarding Middle Wharf and protecting the safeguarded wharf for future operational use. We will continue to discuss our proposals for this site with the GLA. Design proposals for this site must be compatible with its continuing use as a safeguarded wharf and with the adjacent Riverlight development. This includes the proposals for a riverside walkway.
Your comments are noted and will be taken into N consideration where possible in developing our proposals for this site. We have engaged TfL in developing our proposals for this site, and will continue to do so as the designs are developed further. We will seek to minimise the area required for our permanent works. However, the site contains existing sewer infrastructure essential for the area. Any proposals for additional operational uses of the site are outside of the scope of our project. However, design proposals for this site must be compatible with its continuing use as a safeguarded wharf and with the adjacent Riverlight development. N
- coordination of construction activities over the coming decades. 15.6.19 Improve or create new (6m wide) footpaths and cycle ways as part of the design. LBW 1
We will continue to look at opportunities to co-ordinate with N other construction activities over the coming decades, where practical. Following completion of construction works, the Thames Path would be diverted from its existing route along Nine Elms Lane (A3205) to the river frontage, permanently extending the path along the River Thames to the north of the Middle Wharf and Heathwall Pumping Station sites. However, physical constraints mean that it is not possible to provide a width of 6m along the whole length of the path. Our proposals have been designed to reflect the existing character and industrial heritage of the site. The new area of public realm in front of Heathwall Pumping Station has been N
15.6.20
Proposals should be in keeping with and blend into the character of the local area/minimise visual impact. They should
LBW
15-21
Ref
Design suggestions also integrate with the Riverlight development.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response designed to create a high-quality riverside public realm. The use of weathered steel in the fencing and ventilation columns would be a permanent acknowledgment of the sites industrial past. However, we also understand and recognise that the area is undergoing substantial change and regeneration and we will continue to consider how our proposals can integrate with the Riverlight development as our designs develop. We believe that we have undertaken an appropriate level of public consultation that has provided significant opportunity for the local community to comment on our proposals. Our staged approach to consultation also means that we have been able to revise our designs in response to comments and concerns. We agree that our development should be environmentally friendly and we will consider ways to incorporate Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) into our proposals.
Outcome
15.6.21
Final site design should be informed by local consultation/available for comment.
7801
15.6.22
Designs should be environmentally friendly/sustainable.
7801, LR9491
15.7
15.7.1 15.7.2
Management of operational effects

This section sets out feedback comments received during phase two consultation relating to the management of operational effects at Heathwall Pumping Station. This includes the identification of site specific issues associated with the site once it is operational and proposals for addressing these issues. During phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the correct key issues associated with Heathwall Pumping Station once the tunnel is operational (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 15.7.1 and 15.7.2. Tables 15.7.3 to 15.7.14 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 15.7.1 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 0 0 3 0 3 3 0 0 3 Yes No Dont know/unsure
15-22
Table 15.7.2 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 15.7.3 Number of respondents Total 0 0 0 4 0 4 2 1 1 2 1 1 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 Heathwall Pumping Station once it is operational. Feedback comments are organised under common themes. The themes are: General themes: General comments on the key issues General 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 Socioeconomic Structures and utilities Townscape and visual effects Transport and access Water and flood risk
General feedback comments on the identified key issues

Supportive and neutral feedback comments on the identified key issues 15.7.4 15.7.5 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to general comments on the key issues during operation. Objections, issues and concerns on the identified key issues No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to general comments on the key issues during operation.
15-23
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 15.7.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation Ref 15.7.6 Supportive and neutral comments Measures to address potential issues are satisfactory. Respondent ID 7404 No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues 15.7.7 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to general comments on the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation.
Air quality and odour

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour Table 15.7.4 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour during operation Ref 15.7.8 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 15.7.9 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to air quality and odour during operation. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour Table 15.7.5 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation Ref 15.7.10 Supportive and neutral comments Effect of odour arising from operation of the tunnel. Respondent ID (LR)CCW, 7442 No. 2 Our response Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of odour associated with operation of the tunnel are set out in our PEIR (volume 18, section 4), which concludes that no significant effects are predicted in relation to odour when the tunnel is operational. The ventilation facilities would be designed to minimise the release of untreated air from the tunnel system and for approximately 99 per cent of the average year, air released from the tunnel would be treated and would not have any odours. This arrangement meets the Environment Agencys odour criteria. Outcome N
Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour Table 15.7.6 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation Ref 15.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns Install equipment to monitor air quality and odour effects. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response We propose to use air quality monitoring equipment during the operation of the tunnel, as set out in the Air management plan. Outcome N
15-24
Historic environment
15.7.12 No feedback comments were received in relation to the historic environment during operation.
Land quality and contamination

15.7.13 No feedback comments were received in relation to land quality and contamination during operation.
Lighting
15.7.14 No feedback comments were received in relation to lighting during operation.
Natural environment (aquatic)

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

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 15.7.7 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Ref 15.7.16 Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID No. 1 Our response Your comments are noted and welcomed.
Support the efforts to minimise the long-term LR9491 impacts on biodiversity and secure improvements.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) 15.7.17 15.7.18 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on natural environment (terrestrial) during operation. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 15.7.8 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Ref 15.7.19 15.7.20 Objections, issues and concerns Provide 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 Outcome
15.7.21
Locate permanent works within the site to avoid sensitive and designated areas.
LR9491
As stated in para 6.1.3 of our PEIR (volume 18, section 6), N significant operational effects on terrestrial ecology as a result of the tunnel operation and the infrequent N 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. All permanent works would be located within the defined N site boundary.
Noise and vibration

15.7.22 No feedback comments were received in relation to noise and vibration during operation.
15-25
Open space and recreation

15.7.23 No feedback comments were received in relation to open space and recreation during operation.
Planning and development

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to planning and development 15.7.24 15.7.25 15.7.26 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to planning and development during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to planning and development during operation. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development during operation. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development Table 15.7.9 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on planning and development during operation Ref 15.7.27 Objections, issues and concerns Location of permanent works should consider options for the future use of Middle Wharf if its safeguarded status is rescinded in the future (the LBW does recommend, however, that the wharf continues to be safeguarded). Respondent ID LBW No. 1 Our response Your comments are noted. However, the wharf is currently safeguarded and we are required to comply with GLA policy in this regard. The GLA has just undergone a review of all safeguarded wharves in London. The draft report was published for consultation in October 2011 and recommended that Middle Wharf remains safeguarded. In the event the wharf's status changes when the final review is published, or in subsequent reviews, we would be willing to consider options for its future use. We consider that our proposals would not prevent Middle Wharf from being used as a working wharf once our works are complete. Although we have allowed for the creation of the riverside walk in front of the wharf, our design allows the riverside walk to be closed off when it is needed by the wharf. Outcome N
15.7.28
Middle Wharf must be returned to a viable working wharf.
GLA
Socioeconomic
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects 15.7.29 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to socio-economic effects during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects Table 15.7.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during operation Ref 15.7.30 Objections, issues and concerns Permanent business relocation and associated effects; not acceptable to move to Battersea Barge. Respondent ID GLA, 9337 No. 2 Our response We are preparing a socio-economic impact assessment that will examine the likely significant effects of the proposed development on local business operations. As part of this assessment and our design development we are looking at ways in which we can manage the effect of our construction works on Battersea Barge. Our proposals may require the relocation of Battersea Barge to an Outcome N
15-26
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response appropriate nearby location and we will continue to engage with its owners Battersea Barge as our proposals develop.
Outcome
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects 15.7.31 15.7.32 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects 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 the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during operation.
Structures and utilities

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to structures and utilities 15.7.33 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to structures and utilities during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities Table 15.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during operation Ref 15.7.34 Objections, issues and concerns Structural damage to other structures arising from construction activities. Respondent ID 9337 No. 1 Our response Our Settlement project information paper provides N information on our approach to controlling and limiting ground movement, which can cause settlement, associated with construction of the tunnel. It is acknowledged that construction of the tunnel would cause some small movements in the ground, the level of which would depend on a range of factors including the 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 under London, minimise the likelihood of any potential ground movement. We are assessing the potential likely significant effects of ground movement in advance of the works and, where necessary, would carry out protective measures. We would monitor actual ground movement during and after the tunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted. We would also carry out a defects survey on buildings located over, or close to, our tunnels and worksites where we consider this necessary. 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 due to our construction works taking place nearby, disturbance compensation may be available as detailed in our Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities 15.7.35 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during operation
15-27
Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on structures and utilities 15.7.36 No objections, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during operation.
Townscape and visual

15.7.37 No feedback comments were received in relation to townscape and visual effects during operation.
Transport and access

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access 15.7.38 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to transport and access during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access Table 15.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during operation Ref 15.7.39 Objections, issues and concerns Proposed diversion of the Thames Path is unsuitable; object to the introduction of a riverside path in this location. Respondent ID PLA No. 1 Our response Your objection is noted. In order to ensure pedestrian safety and to prevent disruption to operational activities at Middle Wharf, we are proposing sliding gates in order to restrict public access along the Thames Path when the existing jetty is in use. Outcome N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access 15.7.40 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to the measures to address the effects of transport and access during operation. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to measures the proposed to address the effects of transport and access Table 15.7.13 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address transport and access effects during operation Ref 15.7.41 Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted. In designing our scheme we have taken the wharf's safeguarded status into account, and our permanent works would not preclude utilisation of the wharf for cargo handling. Outcome N
Permanent works on the wharf must be PLA minimised and not result in a diminution of the site's viability for cargo handling.
Water and flood risk

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to water and flood risk 15.7.42 15.7.43 15.7.44 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to water and flood risk during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to water issues during operation. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during operation. Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk Table 15.7.14 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during operation Ref 15.7.45 Objections, issues and concerns Ensure that the design does not cause siltation, erosion or other hydrological Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response We have carried out fluvial modelling of the permanent and temporary foreshore works. The permanent and temporary Outcome N
15-28
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns impacts.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response works have been designed so as to minimise scour. Where significant scour is predicted we would carry out preventative measures (such as placing riprap on the river bed), and in all locations the riverbed would be monitored and remedial works carried out if/as required. Riprap presents a change in habitat rather than a loss of habitat. This will be covered in the Environmental statement to be submitted with our DCO application.
Outcome
15.8
15.8.1 15.8.2
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. Heathwall Pumping Station therefore remains our preferred site to connect Heathwall Pumping Station CSO and South West Storm Relief to the main tunnel. 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: whether it would be possible to make further use of the river for the transport of shaft excavated materials in order to reduce the number of lorries on local roads alterations to the construction barge mooring location to accommodate an enlargement of the cofferdam including moving the Battersea Barge further to the west for the duration of our construction works ways to incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems into our proposals increasing the size of the permanent platform that protrudes into the River Thames.
15.8.3
15.8.4 15.8.5
We are also considering an increase in the diameter of the drop shaft from 6m to 10m in light of further engineering information. 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 paragraphs 15.8.3 and 15.8.4 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.
15-29

Supp Report On P2 Consultation - Chapter 15 Heathwall Pumping Station

Uploaded by

Document Information

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 15 Heathwall Pumping Station

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

15 Heathwall Pumping Station

Thames Tunnel Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

15 Heathwall Pumping Station

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

15 Heathwall Pumping Station

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

15 Heathwall Pumping Station

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

15 Heathwall Pumping Station

Heathwall Pumping Station

Structure of this chapter

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

15 Heathwall Pumping Station

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

15 Heathwall Pumping Station

Your feedback is noted.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

15 Heathwall Pumping Station

Objections, issues and concerns

Management of construction works

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

15 Heathwall Pumping Station

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

15 Heathwall Pumping Station

General feedback comments on the identified key issues

General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues

Construction impacts must be minimised at every stage of construction.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

15 Heathwall Pumping Station

Objections, issues and concerns

Air quality and odour

Construction working hours and programme

Construction site design and layout

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

15 Heathwall Pumping Station

Concerned about the location/existence of the cofferdam.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

15 Heathwall Pumping Station

Objections, issues and concerns

Land quality and contamination

Natural environment (aquatic)

Natural environment (terrestrial)

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

15 Heathwall Pumping Station

Noise and vibration

Open space and recreation

Planning and development

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

15 Heathwall Pumping Station

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

15 Heathwall Pumping Station

Objections, issues and concerns the Battersea Barge.

Effect of construction activities on residential amenity.

Proposals will require relocation of homes and cause population displacement.

More information is needed on socioeconomic effects.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

15 Heathwall Pumping Station

Objections, issues and concerns

Structures and utilities

Supplementary report on phase two consultation