Supp Report On P2 Consultation - Chapter 13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

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

Chapter 13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore
13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore
Thames Tunnel Supplementary report on phase two consultation

List of contents
Page number
13
Chelsea Embankment Foreshore .............................................................. 13-1 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7 13.8 Introduction ......................................................................................... 13-1 Number of respondents ...................................................................... 13-2 Site selection ...................................................................................... 13-2 Alternative sites .................................................................................. 13-7 Management of construction works .................................................... 13-8 Permanent design and appearance .................................................. 13-31 Management of operational effects .................................................. 13-36 Our view of the way forward ............................................................. 13-49
List of tables
Page number
Table 13.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on Chelsea Embankment Foreshore ................................................................. 13-2 Table 13.3.1 Views on whether Chelsea Embankment Foreshore should be our preferred site (Q2) .......................................................................... 13-3 Table 13.3.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to selection of our preferred site ............................................................................ 13-3 Table 13.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection of our preferred site .................................................................................. 13-4 Table 13.3.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites ...... 13-6 Table 13.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to Chelsea Embankment Foreshore ... 13-7 Table 13.4.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites...................................................... 13-8 Table 13.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q4a) ............................................................... 13-8 Table 13.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q4b) ................................................................................. 13-9 Table 13.5.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the identified key issues during construction .............................................................. 13-9 Table 13.5.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues during construction ....................................................................... 13-10 Table 13.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction .............................. 13-10 Table 13.5.6 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to air quality and odour during construction ....................................................................... 13-10 Table 13.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during construction ....................................................................... 13-11 Table 13.5.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction ... 1311 Table 13.5.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme .................................................................. 13-11 Table 13.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout ..................................................................................... 13-12 Table 13.5.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during construction ....................................................................... 13-13 Table 13.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction ..................................................................................................... 13-15
Table 13.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination during construction ................................................ 13-15 Table 13.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction ........................................................ 13-16 Table 13.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during construction .................................................................................. 13-16 Table 13.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction ..................................................... 13-17 Table 13.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction .................................................................................. 13-18 Table 13.5.18 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to noise and vibration during construction ....................................................................... 13-19 Table 13.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during construction ....................................................................... 13-19 Table 13.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction . 13-21 Table 13.5.21 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to open space and recreation during construction ...................................................... 13-21 Table 13.5.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during construction ...................................................... 13-21 Table 13.5.23 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during construction ....................................................................... 13-22 Table 13.5.24 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during construction ................ 13-23 Table 13.5.25 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction............................................................ 13-24 Table 13.5.26 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to transport and access during construction ....................................................................... 13-24 Table 13.5.27 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction ....................................................................... 13-25 Table 13.5.28 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction .. 1327 Table 13.5.29 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during construction ....................................................................... 13-30 Table 13.6.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right issues that have influenced our permanent design for this site? (Q5) ..................... 13-31 Table 13.6.2 Please give us your views about our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site (Q6) ....................................... 13-31
Table 13.6.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site ........................................................... 13-32 Table 13.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site ........................................................... 13-33 Table 13.6.5 Design suggestions ...................................................................... 13-34 Table 13.7.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q7a) ............................................................. 13-36 Table 13.7.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q7b) ............................................................................... 13-37 Table 13.7.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation .................. 13-38 Table 13.7.4 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to air quality and odour during operation ........................................................................... 13-38 Table 13.7.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during operation ........................................................................... 13-38 Table 13.7.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation ... 13-39 Table 13.7.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during operation ........................................................................... 13-40 Table 13.7.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during operation............................................................. 13-41 Table 13.7.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during operation ...................................................................................... 13-42 Table 13.7.10 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation..................................... 13-43 Table 13.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation ......................................................... 13-43 Table 13.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation ...................................................................................... 13-43 Table 13.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during operation ........................................................................... 13-44 Table 13.7.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during operation ..... 13-44 Table 13.7.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during operation ........................................................................... 13-45 Table 13.7.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during operation 13-46 Table 13.7.17 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to townscape and visual effects during operation ................................................................ 13-46
Table 13.7.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during operation ................................................................ 13-46 Table 13.7.19 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to transport and access during operation ........................................................................... 13-47 Table 13.7.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during operation ........................................................................... 13-47 Table 13.7.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during operation .. 13-48 Table 13.7.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during operation ........................................................................... 13-48 Table 13.7.23 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during operation ... 13-49
13
13.1
13.1.1
Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

Introduction
This chapter covers the feedback comments received during phase two consultation regarding our preferred site Chelsea Embankment Foreshore (opposite Bull Ring Gate). This site would be used to intercept the existing local combined sewer overflow (CSO), known as the Ranelagh CSO and to construct a connection to the northern Low Level Sewer No.1 to divert flows into the main tunnel. At phase one consultation, Chelsea Embankment Foreshore (west of Chelsea Bridge) was presented as our preferred site to intercept the Ranelagh CSO. However, following reassessment of potential sites, Chelsea Bridge (opposite Bull Ring Gate) was identified as our preferred site to intercept the Ranelagh CSO and presented at phase two consultation. For further information regarding the proposals for this site at phase two consultation, refer to the Chelsea Embankment Foreshore site information paper. As part of our phase two consultation we identified two shortlisted sites to intercept the Ranelagh CSO. The shortlisted sites are: Chelsea Embankment Foreshore (west of Chelsea Bridge) (site 1) Ranelagh Gardens (site 2).
13.1.2
Where feedback comments were received on any of these shortlisted sites, they are presented in section 13.2 (site selection) and section 13.3 (alternative sites) of this chapter.
Structure of this chapter

13.1.3 This chapter is organised as listed below, which reflects the structure of the phase two consultation feedback form: 13.1.4 section 13.2 Number of respondents section 13.3 Site selection section 13.4 Alternative sites section 13.5 Management of construction works section 13.6 Permanent design and appearance section 13.7 Management of operational effects section 19.8 Our view of the way forward.
In sections 13.3 to 13.7 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.
13.1.5 13.1.6
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.
13-1
13.2
13.2.1
Number of respondents
A total of 42 respondents provided feedback comments on Chelsea Embankment Foreshore, of which eight were received after the close of phase two consultation. Table 13.2.1 sets out the different groups who provided feedback for this site. Table 13.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on Chelsea Embankment Foreshore 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 - Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) Landowners 1 respondent Community consultees 34 respondents Petitions 0 petitions
13.2.2
Feedback on this site was received in a number of forms, including feedback forms and correspondence (emails and letters).
13.3
13.3.1
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. 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.
13.3.2
The results of the site selection process up to phase two consultation are set in:
13.3.3
In this section, we set out the feedback comments received in relation to the selection of Chelsea Embankment Foreshore 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 K of the Design development report and our PEIR (volume 16). Where respondents commented on matters relating to management of construction works, permanent design and appearance or the management of operational effects at Chelsea Embankment Foreshore, these comments are reported in sections 13.5 to 13.7.
13.3.4
Number of respondents
13.3.5 During phase two consultation, respondents were asked to comment on the decision to select Chelsea Embankment Foreshore as the preferred site to intercept the Ranelagh CSO (see question 2 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). Table 13.3.1 sets out details of the different groups who responded and were asked to select supportive, opposed/concerned or dont know/unsure. Tables 13.3.2 and 13.3.3 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.
13-2
Table 13.3.1 Views on whether Chelsea Embankment Foreshore should be our preferred site (Q2) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 1 0 0 22 0 23 11 11 1 11 10 1 Supportive Opposed/concerned 1 - EA Dont know/unsure
Supportive and neutral comments in relation to our preferred site Table 13.3.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to selection of our preferred site Ref 13.3.6 13.3.7 Supportive and neutral comments Support the use of the preferred site. The preferred site is more suitable than the site put forward at phase one consultation because the drop shaft and interception chamber foreshore projections have been combined into a single structure and the diameter of the shaft has also been reduced, thereby reducing the overall footprint of the structure. The preferred site is more suitable than any of the shortlisted sites - specifically Ranelagh Gardens (site 2). Support for changes to the extent of the preferred site since phase one consultation. Qualified support for the preferred site included: - the site is generally in the right location, although the structure in the River Thames has not been designed to take account of navigational risk
-
Respondent ID 9299, LR9447 RBKC
No. 2 1
Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
13.3.8
8612
13.3.9 13.3.10
7807 GLA, PLA, 9078
1 3
Noted. This is the conclusion of our site selection process. Refer to paragraph 13.5.21, for our response to navigational risk assessment.
due to effect on A3212
In relation to the effect on A3212, we are proposing to use barges to bring in and take away material used to fill the cofferdam. This is expected to reduce the number of lorry visits to/from this site by approximately 45 per cent. We are reviewing the proposed routes that construction traffic would use as part of our transport assessment. If the transport assessment identifies any likely significant effects arising from congestion we will develop mitigation measures to minimise the effects of any disruption. We are also developing a Code of construction
13-3
Ref
Supportive and neutral comments
Respondent ID
No.
Our response practice (CoCP) (a draft was provided as part of our phase two consultation), which will include a Traffic management plan to ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled to minimise any likely significant effects on the road network including access to the local area, as well as setting out construction traffic routes, site access/egress points, signage and monitoring procedures. Your comment is noted.
the PLA has no in principle objections to the use of this site in terms of navigational safety.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to our preferred site Table 13.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection of our preferred site Ref 13.3.11 Objections, issues and concerns Object to the use of this preferred site; the EA is generally opposed in principle to the use of any foreshore sites along the tidal Thames as this is likely to lead to a number of detrimental effects to flood risk management, biodiversity and recreation. However, we recognise the environmental benefits the Thames Tunnel project will deliver and there is a need to develop as near to the river as possible. Other concerns, issues and objections raised included that the preferred site is not the optimal solution in particular due to the transport effects of the proposals. Respondent ID EA, EH No. 2 Our response The sites that we consulted on at phase two consultation have been identified through an extensive site selection process (see our Site selection methodology paper on our website). We consulted on and agreed the methodology with key stakeholders including potentially directly affected local authorities and utilised a multidisciplinary approach to assess potential CSO sites against engineering, planning, environmental, property and community considerations. We recognise that, given the locations where we are seeking to construct and operate the tunnel, many of the shortlisted sites are constrained. However, based on our assessment we consider that, on balance, Chelsea Embankment Foreshore is the most suitable site. This is because it would have less effect on the foreshore of the River Thames than our preferred site at phase one consultation because it is only necessary to build one structure. There is also likely to be less effect on local residential areas. The location of the site also offers the opportunity to create a new area of public space that complements the setting of the historic environment and views along the River Thames than the alternatives considered. While we have considered inland sites, in this case, we do not consider that Ranelagh Gardens is more suitable hence our preference for a foreshore site. We consider that Ranelagh Gardens is less suitable because it would have a greater effect on the two Grade II registered parks and gardens, the Royal Hospital Chelsea and Ranelagh Gardens, both of which have significant heritage value as well as providing an important resource for the local community for events such as the Chelsea Flower Show. The site is also located closer to residential properties. For further details on the results of the site selection process including our assessment of shortlisted sites, refer to appendix K of the Phase two scheme development report. For further details of how we propose to address concerns relating to the likely significant transport effects of our proposals refer to table 13.5.28.
13.3.12
GLA
13-4
Ref 13.3.13
Objections, issues and concerns Ranelagh Gardens (site 2) is more suitable since it presents a better alternative in terms of impact on the historic environment.
Respondent ID EH
No. 1
Our response Our re-assessment of sites prior to phase two consultation and our review of phase two consultation comments does not support the use of Ranelagh Gardens as our preferred site. Ranelagh Gardens is less suitable because it would have a greater effect on surrounding heritage assets including the two Grade II registered parks and gardens and the Royal Hospital Chelsea both of which have significant heritage value as well as providing an important resource for the local community for events such as the Chelsea Flower Show. The site is also located closer to residential properties. For further details on the results of the site selection process including our assessment of shortlisted sites, refer to appendix J of the Phase two scheme development report. CSOs need to be intercepted along the line of the existing sewer that flows into the River Thames. CSO interception sites need to be as close to the line of the sewer as practicable so there are few options and a more localised approach is required. In the case of the Ranelagh CSO, the overflow point is located within our proposed site and as explained in our response to paragraph 13.3.11, we consider that any land-based sites identified through our site selection process are less suitable. CSOs need to be intercepted along the line of the existing sewer that flows into the River Thames. CSO interception sites need to be as close to the line of the sewer as practicable so there are few options and a more localised approach is required. We would note that the preferred site at Chelsea Embankment Foreshore is not surrounded by residential properties, the nearest residential building is located approximately 100m to the west of the site. Cost is one of the considerations that inform site assessments, but it is not an overriding factor that outweighs all other engineering, planning, environmental, community, property and wider economic considerations. High acquisition costs alone would not outweigh positive considerations such as use of brownfield land, conformity with planning policy, and ability to construct/operate the proposed works on the site. Equally, a low value site would not result in a site becoming our preferred site, if there were significant planning, environmental or community concerns associated with its use. In determining our preferred site, a balanced judgement is therefore made, taking planning, environment, engineering, property and community considerations into account. Our site selection process has had regard to possible likely significant effects on the local area and community, and the environmental impact assessment process will undertake further assessment and recommend any necessary mitigation measures. The environment and community assessments undertaken as part of site selection considered the number and nature of sensitive receptors as well as possible likely significant effects from traffic and construction works including noise, air quality and visual impact. We also considered likely significant effects on employment uses and possible conflict with
13.3.14
Site selection should not use sites within the River Thames foreshore.
EA
13.3.15
Site selection should avoid sites in residential and/or densely populated areas.
7568
13.3.16
The cost of using the site is too high/not cost-effective.
8402
13.3.17
The scale of effects on the local area and community resulting from the selection of this site is unacceptable/has not been properly considered.
8402
13-5
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns
Respondent ID
No.
Our response planning policy that seeks to protect local amenity. Accordingly, we consider that the scale of possible likely significant effects on the local area and community has been adequately considered. For further details on the results of the site selection process including our assessment of shortlisted sites, refer to appendix J of the Phase two scheme development report. Refer to paragraph 2.2.32 for our response to this feedback comment.
13.3.18
Disagree with/not commenting on site selection due to wider objections to the proposed solution and/or the need for the project. Site selection should avoid sites adjacent to or containing heritage assets.
7568
13.3.19
EH
The location of CSO sites is constrained by the location of the existing combined sewers, because the interception chambers have to be built on the existing sewers. The search area for the CSO sites is therefore localised around the vicinity of the existing sewer. As set out in the Site selection methodology paper, sites have not been identified which would be located in London's World Heritage sites. This is in recognition of the historic importance of these sites. Given that we had a limited search area to identify a suitable CSO site, we did not consider it was appropriate to exclude sites based on whether they included or were adjacent to other designated heritage assets when compiling our longlist of sites. As part of the assessment undertaken the effect of our proposals of heritage designations was considered. In relation to intercepting the Ranelagh CSO and connecting to the northern Low Level Sewer No.1, all of the shortlisted sites are adjacent to heritage assets and have the potential to affect their setting. Based on our assessment, we consider that our preferred site minimises the effect on heritage assets and once the permanent works have been constructed, provides an opportunity to complement and enhance the setting of the existing heritage assets. Whether a site is brownfield or greenfield/open space was taken into account along with other considerations as set out in the Site selection methodology paper.
13.3.20
Site selection should avoid greenfield sites and open space.
9055
Shortlisted sites
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to shortlisted sites 13.3.21 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to shortlisted sites, Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites Table 13.3.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites Ref 13.3.22 Objections, issues and concerns Shortlisted site Ranelagh Gardens (site 2) is unsuitable for the proposed use(s) because: - the Gardens have a high heritage and amenity value, and are used for big events - the site is closer to residents; use of the Respondent ID GLA, RBKC, 7807 No. 3 Our response Based on our assessment, we consider that while Ranelagh Gardens is potentially suitable as a CSO site, in comparison to our preferred site it is a less suitable site. This is because it would have a greater effect on surrounding heritage assets including the two Grade II registered parks and gardens and the Royal Hospital Chelsea, both of which have
13-6
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns site would require hoarding in excess of 2.4m to protect the upper floors of neighbouring dwellings from noise - delivery by barge would not be possible - it would be difficult to manage construction traffic. Objection to the inclusion or referencing of Ranelagh Gardens (shortlisted site 2) as a possible alternative to the preferred site.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response significant heritage value as well as providing an important resource for the local community for events such as the Chelsea Flower Show. The site is also located closer to residential properties. For further details on the results of the site selection process, refer to appendix K of the Phase two scheme development report.
13.3.23
9299
13.4
13.4.1
Alternative sites
During phase two consultation, respondents were invited to suggest alternative sites that they thought should be used to intercept the Ranelagh CSO instead of Chelsea Embankment Foreshore (see question 3 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The following sites were put forward as possible alternatives: Table 13.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to Chelsea Embankment Foreshore Ref 13.4.2 Alternative site suggestions Royal Hospital Chelsea grounds. Reasons Reduced impact of permanent works on the river regime and navigation. Respondent ID 8853 No. 1 Our response Although not shortlisted at phase two consultation, we have considered sites within the grounds of the Royal Hospital Chelsea to intercept Ranelagh CSO and control the northern Low Level Sewer. These sites were considered less suitable than our preferred site due to engineering constraints and potential likely significant effects on environment and local community. For further details on the results of the site selection process, refer to appendix K of the Phase two scheme development report. Sites have been selected on the basis of needing to intercept existing CSOs. CSOs are in fixed locations and the site to intercept the CSO needs to be on the line of, or in close proximity to, the sewer. The suggested alternative sites are considered too far away from Ranelagh CSO northern Low Level Sewer, which are located to the north of the River Thames and therefore are not suitable as a CSO interception site.
Other sites
13.4.3 13.4.4
South of the River Thames. Battersea Park.
More practical/logical site. The 2 outlets from the sewers could be linked by a longer tunnel into the main tunnel. Site is more suitable because it reduces risk of river scouring, as any protection is likely to silt up in this site, avoids any traffic restrictions/increased on the Embankment and surrounding roads for the duration of the construction works, and is within a less residential area so would cause less disruption.
7212 8089, 8814
1 2
13.4.5
Respondents also made the following comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites:
13-7
Supportive and neutral feedback comments Table 13.4.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites Ref 13.4.6 Supportive and neutral comments No alternative site is available; Thames Water has done its best to survey alternative sites. Not an expert/not qualified/do not have the knowledge to comment. Respondent ID 7404 No. 1 Our response Your support is welcomed and noted.
13.4.7
8814
The purpose of consultation is to explore as fully as possible what those with an interest in the project think about our proposals. We will have regard to comments received from both technical and non-technical consultees.
Objections, issues and concerns No objections, issues and concerns were raised in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites.
13.5
13.5.1 13.5.2
Management of construction works

This section sets out feedback comments received during phase two consultation in relation to the management of construction works at Chelsea Embankment Foreshore. This includes the identification of site specific issues affecting 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 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore 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 13.5.1 and 13.5.2. Tables 13.5.3 to 13.5.29 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 13.5.1 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 17 0 17 8 5 4 8 5 4 Yes No Dont know/unsure
13-8
Table 13.5.2 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 13.5.3 Number of respondents Total 0 0 0 18 0 18 6 8 4 6 8 4 Yes No Dont know/unsure
The following sections set out the feedback comments received from respondents in connection to the identification of key issues associated with Chelsea Embankment Foreshore during construction and our proposals to address these issues. Feedback comments are organised under common themes. The themes are: General themes: General feedback comments on key issues General feedback comments measures to address the key issues
Topic based themes Air quality and odour Construction working hours and programme Construction site design and layout Historic environment Land quality and contamination Lighting Natural environment (aquatic) Natural environment (terrestrial) Noise and vibration Open space and recreation Planning and development Socio-economic Structures and utilities Townscape and visual Transport and access Water and flood risk
General feedback comments on the identified key issues

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the identified key issues Table 13.5.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the identified key issues during construction Ref 13.5.4 Supportive and neutral comments While key issues have been identified, the benefits associated with the preferred sites have not been highlighted. Respondent ID 7566 No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted.
13-9
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues Table 13.5.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues during construction Ref 13.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns Identification and description of potential effects and key issues is too vague/general/ not satisfactorily explained. There are more key issues than those identified in the site information paper. Respondent ID 8402 No. 1 Our response The key issues in the Chelsea Embankment Foreshore site information paper are intended to provide a broad overview of potential effects and key issues associated with the site during construction. It is not, however, an exhaustive list. A more detailed description of likely significant effects and the methodology through which they have been identified is and assessed is provided in other technical reports, including the PEIR, (volume 16), appendix K of the Design development report , appendix K of the Phase two scheme development report and site selection methodology and background papers. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our Development Consent Order application. Outcome N
13.5.6
8402
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 13.5.7 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 13.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction Ref 13.5.8 Objections, issues and concerns Construction impacts must be minimised at every stage of construction. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response We are developing a CoCP which will set out how we would manage our construction sites 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. 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
Air quality and odour

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour Table 13.5.6 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to air quality and odour during construction Ref 13.5.9 Supportive and neutral comments Mitigation proposed to address air quality and odour issues is satisfactory. Respondent ID RBKC No. 1 Our response Your comments are noted and welcomed.
13-10
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour Table 13.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during construction Ref 13.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns Dust and dirt arising from construction activities. Respondent ID 7457, 8089, 8612 No. 3 Our response Our Managing construction project information paper and draft CoCP sets out the dust control measures and dust monitoring equipment that would be put in place to minimise likely significant effects of dust from construction activities. Our draft CoCP confirms that an Air management plan will be prepared and implemented for each site to control dust emissions, and proposed techniques would be in line with best practice guidelines. Our preliminary assessment of likely significant air quality effects as reported in our PEIR (volume 16, section 4) did not identify any significant effects at residential or other sensitive receptors (such as schools) near this site. Further assessment of likely significant effects on nearby properties will be undertaken as part of our on-going environmental impact assessment work and this will be reported in the Environmental statement to be submitted with our DCO application. Outcome N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour 13.5.11 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour Table 13.5.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction Ref 13.5.12 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 control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition - Best Practice Guidance 2008 has been taken into account in developing our proposals for this site and details are set out in our draft CoCP. Outcome N
Construction working hours and programme

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction working hours and programme 13.5.13 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to construction working hours and programme. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme Table 13.5.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme Ref 13.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns The construction programme is unclear. Respondent ID 8402 No. 1 Our response The overall project programme is set out in the Timing project information paper. Details relating to the site specific construction programme for this site are set out in the Chelsea Embankment Foreshore site information paper, which indicates construction works lasting for a period of approximately four years. Outcome N
13-11
Ref 13.5.15
Objections, issues and concerns The construction programme is too long/ concerned about the duration of construction.
Respondent ID 8047
No. 1
Our response The programming of works at all sites would be configured to minimise the duration of works and associated disruption to the local area where possible. The length of the construction period as set out in the consultation documents was the period assessed in the PEIR (volume 16) that works would be underway and it is hoped that in many cases there would be periods during which there would be no activity or less intensive activity on some sites. Your comments are noted. Our Environmental statement will assess the effects of the scheme at each site and cumulatively in line with requirements set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations.2009.
Outcome N
13.5.16
Other construction programme issue: the volume of tunnel related construction undertaken over the same seven year period at several sites in the same area.
8047
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address construction working hours and programme 13.5.17 13.5.18 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address construction working hours and programme. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address construction working hours and programme No objective, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address construction working hours and programme.
Construction site design and layout

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction site design and layout 13.5.19 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to construction site design and layout. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout Table 13.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout Ref 13.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns Extent of construction site, which includes sites on either side of Chelsea Embankment (A3212). Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response Outcome
The construction site layout has been developed to minimise N its site area. The existing infrastructure to which we need to undertake work comprising the CSO, Northern Low Level Sewer No.1 and utilities are located on both sides of Chelsea Embankment (A3212). We will carry out a Navigational risk assessment for this site, N which will form part of our DCO application. Our temporary cofferdam is more than 30m from the navigational channel, N so we believe that the effects of the works on navigation would be small. We will discuss the findings with the PLA. Preliminary discussions with the PLA have also informed the design of the site. Suitable infrastructure would be constructed to allow the use of barges at the site.
13.5.21 13.5.22
Location/existence of cofferdam and effects on navigational risk. Existence and/or size of structure(s) within the foreshore of the River Thames.
8853 8853
1 1
Suggestions for construction site design and layout 13.5.23 No suggestions were received in relation to construction site design and layout.
13-12
Historic environment
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment 13.5.24 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 Table 13.5.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during construction Ref 13.5.25 Objections, issues and concerns It is not clear what the scale of the effect on the historic environment will be; the assessment to date is very vague. Respondent ID RBKC No. 1 Our response Our PEIR (volume 16, section 7), which was available at phase two consultation contains a preliminary assessment of the impact of our proposals on the historic environment in line with a methodology agreed with the RBKC and other key stakeholders. An assessment of the likely significant effects on the historic 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. Outcome N
13.5.26 13.5.27
Effect on the conservation area. Effect on adjacent/nearby conservation areas (Cheyne, Thames).
GLA, 8612 8612
2 1
Our proposal for this site includes works in the Thames N Conservation Area and the Royal Hospital Conservation N Area and partially within Ranelagh Gardens a Grade II registered park and garden. We recognise the historic character of this area, and in developing our design proposals for the site since phase one we have considered the historic context of this site and developed our proposals to respect this character. An assessment of the likely significant effects on the historic 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. Our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) identifies that works to or in the vicinity of listed buildings would be undertaken in accordance with all required consents and licences and that protection measures would be put in place at the start of the works. We would also notify English Heritage and the local planning authority prior to undertaking works. The site is in proximity to a number of listed building including Royal Hospital Chelsea (Grade I), Bull Ring Gates (Grade II), embankment wall (Grade II), sewer ventilation column (Grade II), Chelsea Bridge (Grade II). Our preliminary assessment has identified that there is a moderate adverse effect on the parapet of the existing river N
13.5.28
Effect on listed building(s) or structures including Royal Hospital Chelsea (Grade I), Bull Ring Gates (Grade II), embankment wall (Grade II), sewer ventilation column (Grade II), Chelsea Bridge (Grade II).
GLA, 8612
13-13
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
13.5.29
Effect of construction activities on archaeology.
EH
Our response Outcome wall which would be locally dismantled during construction works. An assessment of the likely significant effects on the historic 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. We do not propose to undertake works which would affect a listed building or structure at this site. In the event we are required to carry out works, we would do so in accordance with our CoCP, which identifies that works to or in the vicinity of listed buildings would be undertaken in accordance with all required consents and licences and that protection measures would be put in place at the start of the works. We would also notify English Heritage and the local planning authority prior to undertaking works. Our phase two consultation material included a preliminary N assessment of likely significant archaeological effects as detailed in our PEIR (volume 16, section 7). Our preliminary assessment identified the site as a potential location for palaeo-environmental material and for post-medieval timber structures and remains. There is also high potential for redeposited prehistoric artefacts. The desk-based study of the site suggests that no buried heritage assets of very high significance are anticipated that might merit a mitigation strategy of permanent preservation in situ. An assessment of the likely significant effects on the historic 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. Our draft CoCP sets out a range of measures that would be adopted by our contractor in respect of archaeology and a full assessment of the likely significant effects of the scheme on the historic environment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. As set out in our draft CoCP we would put in place procedures for ensuring construction works are appropriately monitored to identify and record any archaeological finds.
13-14
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment 13.5.30 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment Table 13.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction Ref 13.5.31 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on mitigation to address effects on the historic environment. 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 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, would be put in place at the start of the works. We would also notify English Heritage and the RBKC prior to undertaking works and would continue to engage with them closely on the planning of the works.
Land quality and contamination

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to land quality and contamination 13.5.32 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to land quality and contamination during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination Table 13.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination during construction Ref 13.5.33 Objections, issues and concerns There is potential for contamination within the site boundary. Respondent ID 8402 No. 1 Our response As set out in the PEIR (volume 16, section 8) baseline conditions at the site have been assessed through the integration of available desk based data and a site walkover. The Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application will include a section on land quality that will take into account comments and information about the previous use of the site and the potential for contamination in developing a methodology for further ground investigations. Our Environmental statement will set out any recommendations for mitigation in line with our draft CoCP. Our draft CoCP sets out how any identified contamination would be addressed during construction, in agreement with the regulator to remediate contamination and avoid exposure of sensitive environmental receptors to it. Any remediation works on site would be undertaken to the Outcome N
13-15
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response relevant standards and in agreements with the RBKC and/or the Environment Agency as relevant.
Outcome
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination 13.5.34 13.5.35 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of land quality and contamination during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination No objections, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination during construction.
Lighting
13.5.36 No feedback comments were received in relation to lighting during construction.
Natural environment (aquatic)

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) 13.5.37 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) Table 13.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction Ref 13.5.38 Objections, issues and concerns Effect on foreshore habitat(s); although it is acknowledged that they are of poor species diversity. Respondent ID GLA, RBKC, LR9491 No. 3 Our response As part of our PEIR (volume 16, section 5) we assessed the likely significant construction effects of the proposed development on aquatic ecology including the foreshore habitat. The PEIR considers the likely significant effects on the foreshore and River Thames and identifies a number of effects associated with a new mooring and any necessary channel reshaping or dredging. The effects would be controlled through measures to be set out in our CoCP. It is also noted that the effects would be temporary and the habitat would recover following removal of the temporary structures. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We are preparing a full aquatic ecology assessment for submission in the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application. Outcome N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) 13.5.39 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on natural environment (aquatic) during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) Table 13.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during construction Ref 13.5.40 Objections, issues and concerns Provision of compensation habitat, including refuges for fish and other species. Respondent ID LR9491 No. 1 Our response The effects during the construction phase would be temporary and it is anticipated that the habitat would recover following removal of the temporary structures. We do not believe that it is necessary to provide any compensation habitat for the construction phase of the works. Outcome N
13-16
Natural environment (terrestrial)

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) 13.5.41 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 (aquatic) Table 13.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Ref 13.5.42 Objections, issues and concerns Loss of trees arising from construction activities. Respondent ID GLA, RBKC No. 2 Our response Our proposals for this site utilise an existing gap in the line of trees along Chelsea Embankment (A3212) to access the foreshore site in order to limit the number of trees we affect. Based on our preferred site at phase two proposals we would be required to remove approximately 12 semi-mature trees, the majority of which would be along the edge of Ranelagh Gardens in order to access the Low Level Sewer No.1. We have sought to locate our site to minimise the loss of trees in this location and our plans for landscaping include the planting of new trees to replace those that would be lost. For those trees that are retained our draft CoCP sets out how we would protect existing trees during construction. Measures such as protective fencing and prohibition of storing material in the protected area would be implemented prior to works being undertaken as specified in British Standard BS5837 where practicable and based on consultation with the RBKC tree officer. We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. As part of this, we carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. This included our draft CoCP and PEIR (volume 16). We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient for this stage of consultation. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of the likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects on wildlife associated with the construction of the tunnel is contained in our PEIR (volume 16, section 5). This assessment considered the effects in terms of the landbased habitats. The scheme has been designed to minimise effects on wildlife and habitats where possible, where likely significant effects have been identified mitigation has been built into the design. The likely significant effects of the Outcome N
13.5.43
More information is needed on the effect of construction activities on the natural environment.
LR9491
13.5.44
General environmental/ecological impacts arising from construction activities.
8814
13-17
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome development on habitats will be assessed and reported in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of the application. The CoCP that will be submitted with the application would ensure that works are undertaken in compliance with applicable legislation, and with relevant nature conservation policies and guidance, including the Mayor of Londons Biodiversity strategy and local biodiversity action plans. Where species are protected by specific legislation, approved guidance would be followed, appropriate mitigation would be proposed and any necessary licences or consents obtained. There are no existing buildings on the site but the likely significant effects of the development on all potential habitats will be assessed and reported in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of the application. N
13.5.45
Should consider the importance of any existing buildings for protected species.
LR9447
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) 13.5.46 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 13.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Ref 13.5.47 13.5.48 13.5.49 Objections, issues and concerns Any trees lost during construction must be replaced. Trees must be retained/protected during construction. Any other vegetation/habitat lost during construction must be replaced. Respondent ID RBKC GLA GLA No. 1 1 1 Our response Our proposals for this site utilise an existing gap in the line of trees along Chelsea Embankment (A3212) to access the foreshore site in order to limit the number of trees we affect. Based on our preferred site at phase two consultation we would be required to remove approximately 12 semi-mature trees, the majority of which would be along the edge of Ranelagh Gardens in order to access the Low Level Sewer No.1. We have sought to locate our site to minimise the loss of trees in this location and our plans for landscaping include the planting of new trees to replace those that would be lost. For those trees that are retained our draft CoCP sets out how we would protect existing trees during construction. Measures such as protective fencing and prohibition of storing material in the protected area would be implemented prior to works being undertaken as specified in British Standard BS5837 where practicable and based on consultation with the RBKC and TfL tree officers. All construction activities would be contained within our proposed construction site. We have already completed a range of surveys at this site as detailed in the PEIR (volume 16, section 5). Where our methodology for the Environmental statement, which has been agreed with the RBKC, identifies the need for further Outcome N N N
13.5.50 13.5.51
Locate construction activities within the site to avoid sensitive and designated areas. Undertake site surveys prior to the commencement of construction; have not completed the damage survey to the local ecology.
LR9491 7566
1 1
N N
13-18
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome surveys we would ensure that these are completed prior to submission of our DCO application. If our assessment of likely significant effects identifies the need for further site surveys prior to commencement of construction these would be undertaken in accordance with all relevant guidelines and best practice. Details of proposed mitigation measures and initial ecology surveys for the site were set out in the PEIR (volume 16, section 5) 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. Our CoCP sets out 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. N
13.5.52
Other natural environment mitigation: - maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity through an effective mitigation package - Thames Water should take steps to secure the long-term protection of any protected species which may be impacted.
RBKC, 7212, LR9447, LR9491
Noise and vibration

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to noise and vibration Table 13.5.18 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to noise and vibration during construction Ref 13.5.53 Supportive and neutral comments At the majority of dwellings noise is below the existing ambient noise levels; it is unlikely that the additional traffic from construction vehicles will add significantly to the existing traffic noise on surrounding roads. Respondent ID RBKC No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration Table 13.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during construction Ref 13.5.54 Objections, issues and concerns Noise and vibration from underground tunnelling; in the RBKC there is no mention of an assessment of this aspect. General noise effects arising from construction activities. General vibration effects arising from construction activities. Proximity of noisy construction activities to Respondent ID RBKC No. 1 Our response Our PEIR (volume 16, section 9) sets out our preliminary qualitative assessment of likely significant noise and vibration effects from construction site activities, noise from construction traffic on roads outside the site and noise and vibration from operation of the site, together with assumptions that reflect the proposals in our draft CoCP. The nearest residences located northeast of the development are residential flats at Pavilion Court and Chelsea Gardens and these properties lie in the City of Westminster. The nearest residences located to the west of Outcome N
13.5.55 13.5.56 13.5.57
8089, 8612 8089 8612
2 1 1
N N N
13-19
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns residential area/densely populated area.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response the site are on Embankment Gardens and are in the RBKC. The residential properties and other sensitive receptors selected for the noise and vibration assessment are identified in our PEIR (volume 16, section 9) at Table 9.4.1. These were selected as they are representative of the range of noise climates where sensitive receptors are situated around the site. The PEIR assessment used Defra's London noise maps. The Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application will include an assessment of noise and vibration that will be completed in line with the methodology that is compliant with BS4142 and has been agreed with the RBKC. If significant noise effects are identified at a site, we would set out appropriate mitigation measures to provide appropriate attenuation. As set out in our Chelsea Embankment Foreshore site information paper, our contractor would be required to implement noise and vibration control measures at the site, in line with the requirements of the CoCP. The contractor would also need to gain approval prior to the construction work from the RBKC through a Section 61 application under the Control of Pollution Act which would set out specific working methods and the measures to minimise noise and vibration. This would ensure that the noise levels are reasonable and best practical means are applied. The measures would be agreed with local authority environmental health officers. Additionally we would implement best practice measures to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment, and use of enclosures to provide acoustic screens. Full details of the measures that will be adopted for the construction will be set out in the CoCP to be submitted with our DCO application. The Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application will include an assessment of noise and vibration that would be completed in line with the methodology that is compliant with BS5228, BS6472 and BS7385 and has been agreed with the RBKC.
Outcome
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration 13.5.58 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction.
13-20
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration Table 13.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction Ref 13.5.59 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on mitigation of noise and vibration effects: as existing baseline vibration magnitudes are not presented, this should be included for comparison, if not here then in the Environmental statement. Respondent ID RBKC No. 1 Our response The Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application will include a full assessment of likely significant noise and vibration effects that would be completed in line with the methodology that is compliant with BS5228, BS6472 and BS7385 and has been agreed with the RBKC. Our draft CoCP sets out a range of measures that would be adopted by our contractor, to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment, and use of enclosures to provide acoustic screens. Specific measures such as acoustic suppression systems, operation of equipment in the mode that minimises noise and shutting down equipment when not in use are also identified in our draft CoCP. Our contractor would be required to comply with the requirements of the CoCP. The draft CoCP also states that our contractor would be required to apply for Section 61 consents (s.61) under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. These would set out specific working methods and the measures to minimise noise and vibration as well as any appropriate monitoring measures to be agreed with local authority environmental health officers. Outcome N
Open space and recreation

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to open space and recreation Table 13.5.21 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to open space and recreation during construction Ref 13.5.60 Supportive and neutral comments Temporary loss of open space is acceptable as long as Ranelagh Gardens is restored. Respondent ID 9078 No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation Table 13.5.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during construction Ref 13.5.61 Objections, issues and concerns Effect on river navigation and recreational river users. Respondent ID 8089 No. 1 Our response The impact of the cofferdam structure at this site on navigation and recreational river users is the subject of ongoing studies and we are preparing a navigational risk assessment. Where this is shown to have an adverse effect on navigational safety, we will amend our proposals or provide appropriate mitigation in discussion with the PLA. We recognise that this area is considered to be a valuable recreational amenity for the local community. Our works are Outcome N
13.5.62
The site is a very valuable recreational
8612
13-21
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns amenity for the local community.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response located so as to minimise the temporary effects on any open space, as shown in our site information paper and detailed in our Design development report.
Outcome
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation 13.5.63 13.5.64 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation No objections, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation during construction.
Planning and development

13.5.65 No feedback comments were received in relation to planning and development during construction.
Socio-economic
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects 13.5.66 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to socio-economic effects during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects Table 13.5.23 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during construction Ref 13.5.67 Objections, issues and concerns Detrimental effect on business operations. Respondent ID RBKC, 9299 No. 2 Our response We do not believe that the works would have any direct implication for local businesses other than the effect on all road users of Chelsea Embankment. Landowners may have a statutory entitlement to claim compensation for the diminution of the value of their property due to the construction of the tunnel. In addition to the statutory process we have published an Exceptional hardship procedure which sets out how we would assess claims from householders who contend that they are suffering exceptional hardship as a result of being unable to sell their property because it is potentially impacted by our currently published proposals. We have also published a Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme which sets out details of compensation that would be available during construction for damage or loss, required protection measures and compulsory purchase. Our PEIR (volume 16, section 10) provides a preliminary 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 RBKC. A full assessment will be provided with the Environmental statement that is to be submitted with our DCO application. Where likely significant effects are identified we would put in place mitigation measures to address these effects, in Outcome N
13.5.68
Effect on property prices.
9186
13.5.69
Effect of construction activities on residential amenity.
8814, 9299
13-22
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response addition to the measures that are set out in our draft CoCP. We are also preparing a Health impact assessment that will examine the likely significant effects of the proposed development on human 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. Our site selection process, as detailed in our Site selection methodology included an assessment of the shortlisted sites against five 'community' considerations to help determine their suitability. They included proximity to sensitive receptors (including residential and schools), socioeconomic, health and equality considerations. Our Phase two scheme development report provides an overview of how each site was chosen. Our PEIR (volume 16, section 10) provides a preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the scheme on residential amenity and concludes effects are not likely to be significant. We are preparing an Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of our DCO application. The Environmental statement will assess the effects of the proposed development.
Outcome
13.5.70 13.5.71
Effect of construction activities on the local community. General disruption associated with construction activities.
7212, 9186 8402, 9186
2 2
N N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects 13.5.72 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects Table 13.5.24 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during construction Ref 13.5.73 Objections, issues and concerns Mitigation proposed to address socioeconomic effects is inadequate/insufficient. Respondent ID 8402 No. 1 Our response We have set out a range of measures which we believe that would mitigate the effects of construction at this site. In particular our draft CoCP identifies that our contractor would be required to implement a range of measures at the site during construction, including best practice measures to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment and use of hoardings to provide acoustic screens. Additionally our PEIR assessments take into account the mitigation measures set out in the CoCP and therefore our assessment is based on the assumption that the mitigation would be implemented. We are continuing to develop our CoCP and Environmental statement which will be submitted as part of our DCO application. Outcome N
13-23
Structures and utilities

13.5.74 No feedback comments were received in relation to structures and utilities during construction.
Townscape and visual

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to townscape and visual effects 13.5.75 No feedback comments were received in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects Table 13.5.25 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction Ref 13.5.76 Objections, issues and concerns Effect of construction activities and structures on the character of the local area. Respondent ID 8612 No. 1 Our response The effect of construction activity on the character of the local area would be for a temporary period only. Our draft CoCP sets out measures that would ensure that the construction site would be well operated and maintained. Measures to minimise likely significant effects upon the character of the site during construction, such as use of suitable screening around the construction site will be set out in the CoCP and Environmental statement to be submitted with our DCO application. Outcome N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on townscape and visual 13.5.77 13.5.78 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on townscape and visual during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on townscape and visual No objections, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on townscape and visual during construction.
Transport and access

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access Table 13.5.26 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to transport and access during construction Ref 13.5.79 Supportive and neutral comments Support proposed site access; there is sufficient width to provide a temporary site access lane while maintaining two reasonably wide lanes past the site (at least 3.5 metres each). While there would inevitably be some impact on traffic flows this impact should be limited. Respondent ID RBKC No. 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
13.5.80 13.5.81
Support proposed construction traffic routes; 7457 there is a minimal impact of road narrowing. Support proposed use of barges to transport materials. PLA
1 1
13-24
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access Table 13.5.27 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction Ref 13.5.82 Objections, issues and concerns It is not clear what the scale of transport effects will be; the assessment to date is very vague. Cumulative transport effects arising from other development in the local area including the works proposed at Lots Road, Chelsea Embankment, Victoria Embankment and Blackfriars. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response As part of our PEIR (Volume 16, 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 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 RBKC and Transport for London (TfL). The PEIR was available as part of our phase two consultation. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We are preparing a full Transport assessment for submission as part of our DCO application. The Transport assessment will consider the cumulative effects of our works with other strategic developments in the local area and major planned events such as the Chelsea Flower Show. Outcome N
13.5.83
GLA, RBKC, 8612
13.5.84 13.5.85
Disruption to the use of the Thames Path caused by construction works or diversion. Effect of disruption, diversion or closure of pedestrian or cycle route.
GLA, RBKC, 9055 LR13499
3 1
The work sites that we propose for construction would N require the temporary diversion of the Thames Path as indicated in the site information paper to maintain a safe N route that accesses local amenities. These diversions would ensure that a safe route along Chelsea Embankment (A3212) would remain open during construction. The detailed routes would be agreed with the RBKC and TfL. The proposed diversions would last for the duration of the works, after which the current Thames Path route would be reinstated. We are considering the feasibility of re-opening the Thames Path at weekends and will continue to discuss this with the RBKC. As part of our PEIR (volume 16, 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 capacity as well as the effects on residential amenity. At this site we propose to use barges to bring in and take away material used to fill the cofferdam. This is expected to reduce the number of lorry visits to/from this site by approximately 45 per cent. As part of the assessment we have considered likely significant effects of lorry and where applicable barge transport, based on a methodology that has been discussed and agreed with the RBKC 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 C C C
13.5.86 13.5.87 13.5.88
Construction traffic will cause traffic congestion. Construction traffic will exacerbate existing traffic congestion. Construction traffic will affect access to the local area.
RBKC, 7457, 8702, 8814, 9303 GLA, 7271, 7568, 8814, LR13499 8089, 8702
5 5 2
13-25
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome part of our DCO application. The Transport assessment will consider the cumulative effects of our works with other strategic developments in the local area and major planned events such as the Chelsea Flower Show. We are reviewing the proposed routes that construction traffic would use as part of our transport assessment. If the transport assessment identifies any likely significant effects arising from congestion we would develop mitigation measures to minimise the effects of any disruption. As illustrated in the Chelsea Embankment Foreshore site information paper road access to the site is proposed via Chelsea Embankment (A3212) which is part of the major road network. As outlined in the PEIR (volume 16, section 12). It is expected that at the peak of construction (year three) an average of 33 lorries would travel to and from the site each working day. In the context of existing traffic in the local area the expected construction traffic is not considered to be significant. We are also developing a CoCP for submission with our DCO application which will include requirements for a Traffic management plan to ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled 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. It is currently not the intention to close Chelsea Embankment (A3212) as it is recognised that this is a key element of the road network. The proposed construction access arrangements maintain two-way traffic by reducing road lane widths as illustrated in our site information paper. The Traffic management plan that we are currently developing will set out details of the lanes that would be closed or (to maintain two way operation) narrowed, the process for notification of closures. Our transport assessment will also consider the effects of the road realignment and narrowing during the construction period and identify any mitigation measures that are required. We will work closely with the RBKC and TfL in developing the proposals and to notify any affected parties. Our proposals for this site do not currently identify any loss of car parking. Parking bays in the Bull Ring area are not identified as directly affected during the works, although if this area is resurfaced they would be temporarily suspended during such surfacing works 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), N
13.5.89
Proposed access route to the site will result in local road closures (Chelsea Embankment (A3212).
GLA, LR13499
13.5.90
Loss of car parking will affect accessibility to the local area and increase parking pressure.
8089
13.5.91 13.5.92
Effect of construction traffic on road safety. Effect of construction traffic on pedestrian, cyclist and local resident safety due to road closure and narrowing.
GLA, 8814 GLA
2 1
N N
13-26
Ref 13.5.93
Objections, issues and concerns Effect of construction traffic on residential amenity.
Respondent ID 8814
No. 1
Our response Outcome which will include requirements for a Traffic management N plan to ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled 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. The transport assessment will also review data relating to recent accidents. The proposals would be subject to independent external review by TfL and the RBKC to ensure proposed highway layouts and vehicle movement arrangements are as safe as possible. We carefully considered the information we made available N at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. The information was based on our preliminary transport assessment which is still being developed and we will discuss the details further with TfL and the RBKC to ensure that any significant transport effects are identified in the Environmental statement to be submitted as part of our DCO application.
13.5.94
More information is needed on construction transport effects.
GLA, 7708
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access 13.5.95 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access Table 13.5.28 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction Ref 13.5.96 Objections, issues and concerns Use an alternative site. Respondent ID RBKC No. 1 Our response Outcome
The sites that we consulted on at phase two consultation N have been identified through an extensive site selection process (see our Site selection methodology paper on our website). We consulted on and agreed the methodology with key stakeholders including potentially directly affected local authorities and utilised a multidisciplinary approach to assess potential CSO sites against engineering, planning, environmental, property and community considerations. We recognise that, given the locations where we are seeking to construct and operate the tunnel, many of the shortlisted sites are constrained. However, based on our assessment we consider that, on balance, Chelsea Embankment Foreshore is the most suitable site. This is because it would have less effect on the foreshore of the River Thames because it is only necessary to build one structure. There is also likely to be less effect on local residential areas. The location of the site also offers the opportunity to create a new area of public space that complements the setting of the historic environment and
13-27
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response views along the River Thames. While, we have considered inland sites, in this case, we do not consider that Ranelagh Gardens is more suitable hence our preference for a foreshore site. We consider that Ranelagh Gardens is less suitable because it would have a greater effect on the two Grade II registered parks and gardens, the Royal Hospital Chelsea and Ranelagh Gardens, both of which have significant heritage value as well as providing an important resource for the local community for events such as the Chelsea Flower Show. The site is also located closer to residential properties. We also consider that some of the effects arising from the development at this site can be addressed through design development and/or mitigation measures. More information can be found in appendix K of the Design development report and the PEIR (volume 16). For further details on the results of the site selection process including our assessment of shortlisted sites, refer to appendix K of the Phase two scheme development report.
Outcome
13.5.97
More information is needed on transport mitigation; how much research has been done on this and have you conducted traffic surveys? Mitigation proposed to address the issues is inadequate/insufficient and the approach to transportation must be remedied. Establish traffic management plans to minimise closures and impact.
8814
13.5.98
7403
13.5.99
RBKC, 8612
Our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) sets N out a range of measures to manage construction traffic and how our contractor would operate the site, including sections on traffic and lorry management and control, road cleanliness, reinstatement of public rights of way as well as N details about our working hours and the way we would manage our workforce. These measures have been taken into account in undertaking our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the scheme. We are currently N preparing an Environmental statement that will identify further mitigation measures if significant adverse effects are identified and are discussing the details of the CoCP and framework Travel plan with the RBKC. Our contractor would be required to submit a detailed site specific Traffic management plan and Travel plan to TfL and the RBKC for approval prior to commencement of works. The temporary diversion of the Thames Path would be designed to meet TfL design and safety standards and would be agreed with TfL and the RBKC. We are considering the feasibility of re-opening the Thames Path at weekends and will continue to discuss this with the RBKC. We would provide a signalised crossing of the Thames Path diversion where it crosses Chelsea Embankment (A3212), subject to agreement with TfL. C
13.5.100 Provide a suitable and safe Thames Path diversion with carefully designed pedestrian crossings and diversionary signage that are agreed with TfL. Arrange the foreshore site and their work programme in a way that would allow the riverside footway to remain open as often as possible during the four year work programme. Such opportunities should be possible at the weekends if deliveries are scheduled appropriately. 13.5.101 Provide suitable and safe footpath diversions for example a new pedestrian
GLA, RBKC
RBKC
13-28
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns crossing to be constructed across Chelsea Embankment (A3212) between the primary and secondary sites. A signalised crossing should be provided to allow pedestrians to cross the road safely.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response
Outcome
13.5.102 Provide temporary alternative bus service routes for the 360.
9078
We do not believe that the northbound 360 bus route would be affected by our proposed works at this site. Therefore we do not consider it necessary to provide an alternative route for the bus service.
13.5.103 Adopt appropriate site management measures to control construction worker parking; no staff parking should be provided to satisfy Policy CT1(e).
RBKC
As set out in our Transport project information paper, we N would require most construction staff to travel to and from the site by public transport. As part of our Transport assessment that would be submitted with our DCO application we will consider the likely significant effects of our proposed approach and where appropriate provide mitigation such as staff shuttle buses. Our contractor would also be required to agree a Transport management plan and a construction Travel plan with TfL and the RBKC. We are preparing a Transport assessment that will be submitted as part of our DCO application. This will include a detailed analysis of potential access routes and an assessment of the likely significant effects of construction traffic on local roads, together with mitigation that is required to minimise disruption resulting from our site traffic. We would work closely with TfL, the RBKC, local residents and other interested groups to minimise the effects of traffic movements to and from the site. We would note that the location of the secondary site (for connection to the low level sewer) has been positioned where the sewer is furthest from the middle of the road to minimise the impact of these works on traffic. We are undertaking fluvial modelling and this 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 and will inform our navigational risk assessment, where relevant. We are preparing a Navigational risk assessment as part of our DCO application, the approach to which is being discussed with the PLA. Preliminary discussions with the PLA have also informed the design of the site. N
13.5.104 Complete a transport assessment alongside a construction logistics strategy and Environmental statement. Fully assess the potential effect of reducing the lane widths on traffic flows and road user groups, especially cyclists. The Transport assessment should explain how vehicular access to the secondary site would be achieved and explain how the chosen arrangement would minimise disruption to traffic vis--vis the alternative.
GLA, RBKC
13.5.105 Undertake fluvial modelling to identify potential effects of river transport and associated structures on river flows.
PLA
13.5.106 Undertake navigational assessment to identify potential effects of river transport on river users and structures. 13.5.107 Use the river to transport more/all construction materials and spoil. 13.5.108 Use the river rather than road to transport
PLA, 8853
GLA, PLA, LR13499, LR9236 RBKC, 7403, 7457, 8612, 9299
4 5
It is our intention to use the river to bring in and take away N material used to fill the cofferdam, as detailed in our Chelsea Embankment Foreshore site information paper. At this site, use of barges to transport materials for the cofferdam would N
13-29
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns construction materials and spoil.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome remove approximately 7,000 lorries from the road during the construction. However, it is not generally practical and or cost-effective to transport all materials by barge so we would still need to transport some materials by road. We are still developing our transport assessment and will be discussing the details (including highway capacity and the route of the northbound 360 bus) further with TfL and the RBKC in order to ensure our traffic management measures implemented during the construction phase minimise disruption to road users and are acceptable to both parties. N
13.5.109 Other transport and access mitigation comments including: - existing highway capacity on Chelsea Embankment (A3212) should be maintained at all times. Where any lane or parking/loading capacity is required this should be a temporary arrangement and for as short a period as possible to minimise disruption to road users - arrangements to allow buses to turn right from A3212 into the bus turning circle will need to be maintained - Thames Water not their contractor should mandate works to ensure disruption to roads kept to minimum duration
GLA, LR13499
Water and flood risk

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to water and flood risk 13.5.110 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to water and flood risk during construction Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk Table 13.5.29 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID RBKC No. 1 Our response Our PEIR (volume 16, section 15) sets out a preliminary assessment of likely significant effects on flood risk (level one) in line with the requirements of national policy and considers flooding from the sea (and tidal sources), rivers, land and surface water runoff, and groundwater. As set out in our PEIR the site is in flood zone 3b where there is a high probability of flood risk. Our modelling to date indicates that neither the temporary nor the operational scheme would affect flood risk. A level two flood risk assessment will be presented in the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application and will identify any appropriate mitigation. As our designs develop we will review the construction effects on flood risk to determine any requirements for compensation. Outcome N
13.5.111 Effect of construction activities on flood risk.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk 13.5.112 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address water and flood risk during construction.
13-30
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk No objections, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction.
13.6
13.6.1 13.6.2
Permanent design and appearance

This section sets out feedback comments received during phase two consultation in relation to proposals for the permanent design and appearance of buildings and structures at Chelsea Embankment Foreshore 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 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore (see question 5 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The first part of question 5 asked respondents to select agree, disagree or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in the table below. Table 13.6.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right issues that have influenced our permanent design for this site? (Q5) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 0 0 16 0 16 9 5 2 9 5 2 Yes No Dont know/unsure
13.6.3
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 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore (see question 6 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The first part of question 6 asked respondents to select supportive, opposed or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in the table below. Table 13.6.2 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 18 0 18 10 7 1 10 7 1 Supportive Opposed Dont know/unsure
13.6.4
The following sections set out the comments received from respondents in connection with proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the buildings and structures at King Edward Memorial Park Foreshore. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments responded to the first part of questions 5 and 6.
13-31
13.6.5
Feedback comments are organised under the following sub-headings: supportive and neutral comments objections, issues and concerns design suggestions
13.6.6
Where respondents commented on particular site specific issues arising during the operational phase and the management of these effects (whether through design or by other means), these are reported in Section 13.5. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Table 13.6.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Ref 13.6.7 13.6.8 13.6.9 13.6.10 13.6.11 Supportive and neutral comments The design/proposals are OK/fine/ acceptable. 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 proposals because: - the reed beds provide added visual interest and a softening of the incursion into the river at low-tide - material quality of the paving is high and the resurfacing of the Bull Ring to match is a welcome improvement - siting the proposals on the axis with the Royal Hospital Chelsea lends strength to the idea of a foreshore structure on the Embankment; termination of this important link with a new space on the Embankment should provide a new appreciation of the view to the Hospital. Any work that is to be carried out should leave the site in the same/better condition when work is finished. Other qualified support: - welcome that the scheme architects have sought to design a new public open space that is low-key and celebrates the axial alignment of the Royal Hospital Chelsea and its gardens, though this must be weighed against the disruption to the characteristic linearity of the embankment wall and foreshore. Respondent ID LR13496LO 7404, 8089 9303 RBKC (LR)CABE, RBKC No. 1 2 1 1 2 Our response Your comments are noted and welcomed.
13.6.12
RBKC
13.6.13
RBKC
13-32
Ref 13.6.14
Supportive and neutral comments Support for specific design feature: - welcome the proposed Embankment site opposite the Bull Nose and the completion of it as a semi-circular belvedere that would reflect the Bull Nose - soft landscaping and reed bed. Other supportive comments: you have to do what is necessary for the benefit of all concerned.
Respondent ID 9299, LR9491
No. 2
Our response
13.6.15
7404
Your comments are noted.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Table 13.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Ref 13.6.16 Objections, issues and concerns Effect on local views; the current design makes it particularly vulnerable to lapsing into use as a layover for coaches leading to the Royal Hospital Chelsea being frequently obscured from view. Effect of permanent design and layout on river navigation and commercial river users (Thames Clippers etc). Effect of permanent design and layout on river navigation and recreational river users. Types of materials being used in the design need to be reconsidered, for example, the metal finish on the proposed sites kiosks could be vulnerable to theft. The design of the site access/cross-over to the permanent foreshore appears over engineered considering the low level of proposed use. Respondent ID EH No. 1 Our response Your comments are noted and we can confirm that the maintenance of local views has been a key element of our design development process. We propose a kerb along the edge of the traffic lane, which would prevent the new area being used as a coach layover. Our proposed permanent structure is approximately 40m from the navigational channel and 250m from Chelsea Bridge, and we believe that the effect on navigation would be minimal. However, we are preparing a navigational risk assessment, which will identify any required mitigation measures. Your comments are noted and will inform the continuing development of our proposals for this site. C
13.6.17
8853
13.6.18
8853
13.6.19
EH
13.6.20
GLA
We do not propose to provide a dropped kerb to give maintenance access to the permanent structure. The extent of the site entrance shown on the engineering drawings at phase two consultation indicated the preliminary proposed extents of strengthening works that may be required for maintenance vehicle access, rather than the extents of a dropped kerb. The extent of the strengthening works will be revised following more detailed swept path analysis. Your comments are noted.
13.6.21
Opposed to/not commenting on the design because the wrong site has been selected.
8814
13-33
Design suggestions
Table 13.6.5 Design suggestions Ref 13.6.22 13.6.23 Design suggestions Design should incorporate appropriate screening. Design should incorporate tree planting. Respondent ID 8612 8612 No. 1 1 Our response We consider that our proposals are an appropriate response to the unique character of the embankment in this location. We have proposed a blended and flowing design, seeking to respect the sweep and elegance of the existing wall. The same materials, a brick wall with stone parapet, would knit the proposed projecting structure back into its context. We do not believe that screening of the site would form a suitable response in this location. Our proposals for this site utilise an existing gap in the line of trees along Chelsea Embankment (A3212) to access our foreshore site in order to limit the number of trees we affect. Based on our preferred site at phase two proposals we would be required to remove approximately 12 semi-mature trees, the majority of which would be along the edge of Ranelagh Gardens in order to access the Low Level Sewer No.1. We would seek to replace the trees we remove in Ranelagh Gardens and the green appearance of this stretch of the embankment would be reinforced through inter-tidal planting for biodiversity and additional tree planting on the new foreshore structure. These new trees would be planted around the edge of the new space and would also reinforce its character and its relationship with the Bull Ring Gates and the Royal Hospital Chelsea. Your comments are noted and will be taken into consideration in the continuing development of our proposals for this site which we recognise is high profile and requires a sensitive design response. Pedestrian and cycle way access would be reinstated following construction as part of the permanent design. It is proposed that the finished site would be hard landscaped public realm which would extend around the Bull Ring, and include two pedestrian refuges in the middle of the highway. The character of the existing embankment along this stretch is linear, clean and elegant. We have proposed a blended and flowing design, which seeks to respect the sweep and elegance of the existing wall. The same materials, a brick wall with stone parapet, would knit the proposed projecting structure back into its context. The green appearance of this stretch of the embankment would be reinforced through planting for biodiversity and additional tree planting. These new trees would be planted around the edge of the new space and would also reinforce its character and its relationship with the Bull Ring Gates and the Royal Hospital N N
13.6.24
Improve the Thames Path as part of proposals; an improved Thames Path and public realm appropriate for this high profile location. Improve or create new footpaths and cycle ways as part of the design.
GLA
13.6.25
8612
13.6.26
Proposals should be in keeping with and blend into the character of the local area/ minimise visual impact.
8089, 8612
13-34
Ref
Design suggestions
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Chelsea. From the opposite bank, the axis and views to the Royal Hospital would be opened up to allow a clear framed view of the Royal Hospital from the riverside and from Chelsea Bridge and Battersea Park. Your comments are noted and will be taken into consideration in our continuing development of our proposals for this site. In developing our proposals for the site we have sought to respect and enhance the setting of historic assets and to contribute to the street scene. C N
13.6.27 13.6.28
Proposals should use high quality materials and finishes. The final design should be distinctive and of architectural merit/iconic/visually attractive, concur with the view of EH that an exceptional structure is required. Design should include recreational facilities, including a small boat stop or ladder with vertical mooring rails in the wall. Specific design amendments include: - to minimise the encroachment into the river a) move the whole arrangement nearer to the position of the current CSO outfall b) bring the projected semicircular curve closer to the river wall if there is not essential infrastructure on or under it c) omit the intertidal habitat terraces, which create further encroachment - while the new pedestrian refuges are welcome, care needs to be taken in detailed design to prevent street clutter, which would impede the sense of a single space - a pedestrian guardrail may be required - kiosks should be further minimised in their visual impact, reviewing the equipment needs or relocating the cabinets below-ground or providing interesting bespoke structures
- careful control is needed of any
RBKC, 8612, 9299 RBKC
3 1
13.6.29
8161
We note that there are steps to the west which can be used N to secure access to the River Thames. Therefore we do not propose to include any boat stops or mooring rails/ladders at this site. Our proposals at this site have been located to minimise encroachment into the River Thames. We do not consider that moving the shaft toward the outfall would reduce encroachment because of the hydraulic structures that we need to build between the outfall and the drop shaft; the high-level semicircle is reduced as far as practicable with shaft and chamber access located within it. The intertidal terraces on the eastern side of the structure protect a culvert (which is above foreshore level), and the intertidal terraces on the western side of the structure provides visual symmetry in an area of high townscape value. We are reviewing the design of the pedestrian crossings of Chelsea Embankment (A3212) to ensure that they meet their functional requirements while minimising visual clutter. N
13.6.30
EA, RBKC, 8853, LR9491
Your comments are noted and will be taken into consideration in developing our proposals for this site. We are reviewing the design of the kiosks and how they fit into the landscape design.
C C
apparatus required for access to the reed beds and should not present further visual clutter to the structure. 13.6.31 Design should incorporate public art. There is potential to recast the structure as public art or incorporating public art, reducing its RBKC 1
Your comments are noted and will be taken into consideration in developing our proposals for this site.
Your comments are noted and will be taken into consideration in developing our proposals for this site. The site however is being designed to offer a clear vista of the
13-35
Ref
Design suggestions negative visual impact and perhaps providing a focus to the space.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response historical axis between the River Thames and the gates of the Royal Hospital Chelsea. We have also sought to make the visual appearance of the ventilation columns celebrate the nature of the Thames Tunnel project while meeting functional engineering requirements, In continuing to develop our proposals for this site we will take your comments into consideration regarding seating and interpretative material. We are currently not proposing a raised table on Chelsea Embankment (A3212). We will note your comment and will continue to discuss our proposals with TfL. We are developing a design that is suitable for this historic location and its existing materials and planting. C
13.6.32
Design should include: - raised seats mounted on bulge on embankment wall & viewing platform to see the tides and boats on Thames
- visual interpretative material - adoption of a raised table with TfL to help
(LR)CABE, RBKC, 7457
C N N N
reduce traffic speeds in this location

- consistency of surface materials - formal approach to tree planting.
13.7
13.7.1 13.7.2
Management of operational effects

This section sets out feedback comments received during phase two consultation in relation to the management of operational effects at Chelsea Embankment Foreshore. 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 right key issues associated with Chelsea Embankment Foreshore once the site is operational and the ways to address these issues (see questions 7a and 7b of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The first part of question 7a and 7b asked respondents select agree, disagree or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in tables 13.7.1 and 13.7.2. Tables 13.7.3 to 13.7.23 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 13.7.1 Q7a: 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 16 0 16 10 5 1 10 5 1 Yes No Dont know/unsure
13-36
Table 13.7.2 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 13.7.3 Number of respondents Total 0 0 0 17 0 17 8 6 3 8 6 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 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore once the tunnel is operational. Feedback comments are organised under common themes. The themes are: General themes: General feedback comments on the key issues General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues
Topic based themes Air quality and odour Historic environment Land quality and contamination Lighting Natural environment (aquatic) Natural environment (terrestrial) Noise and vibration Open space and recreation Planning and development Socio-economic Structures and utilities Townscape and visual Transport and access Water and flood risk
General feedback comments on the key issues

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the identified key issues 13.7.4 13.7.5 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to general comments on the identified key issues during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to general comments on the identified key issues during operation.
13-37
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 13.7.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation Ref 13.7.6 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 13.7.7 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 13.7.4 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to air quality and odour during operation Ref 13.7.8 Supportive and neutral comments Proposals will ensure that odour is satisfactorily managed. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour Table 13.7.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during operation Ref 13.7.9 Objections, issues and concerns Effect of odour arising from operation of the tunnel. Respondent ID (LR)CCW No. 1 Our response Outcome
Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of N odour associated with operation of the tunnel are set out in our PEIR (volume 16, section 4), which concludes that when the tunnel is operational no significant effects are predicted in relation to odour. The ventilation facilities would be arranged to minimise the release of untreated air from the tunnel system and approximately 99 per cent of the time during 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. We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. As part of this, we carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. This included consultation documents such as our draft CoCP, PEIR and our Air management Plan. We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient. Further assessment will be undertaken as part of our ongoing environmental impact assessment work and this will be reported in the Environmental statement to be submitted N
13.7.10
More information is needed on air quality and odour effects.
RBKC
13-38
Ref 13.7.11
Objections, issues and concerns Effect on air quality arising from the operation of the tunnel.
Respondent ID 8089
No. 1
Our response with our DCO application.
Outcome
Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of N air pollution associated with operation of the tunnel are set out in our PEIR (volume 16, section 4), which concludes that when the tunnel is operational no significant effects are predicted in relation to air pollution. We do not anticipate any air pollution as we have developed an Air management plan to ensure the tunnel is operated in such a way to control odour. At this site we are proposing the use of a passive ventilation system that would draw air through the tunnel before cleaning the air using carbon filters that would absorb possible odour before air leaves the ventilation equipment. After treatment air from the tunnel would then be discharged via a ventilation column further mitigating any possible impacts on local air quality.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour 13.7.12 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour Table 13.7.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation Ref 13.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on air quality and odour mitigation. Respondent ID RBKC No. 1 Our response Details of proposed mitigation measures for the site (odour control) were set out in the PEIR (volume 16, section 4) as part of our phase two consultation alongside the operational proposals outlined in the Air management plan. More details of the likely significant effects of operation on air quality and odour will be set out in the Environmental statement and will be submitted with our DCO application. Outcome N
13.7.14
Mitigation proposed to address permanent air quality and odour issues is inadequate / insufficient.
RBKC
Details of proposed mitigation measures for the site were set N out in the PEIR (volume 16, section 4) as part of our phase two consultation alongside the operational proposals outlined in the Air management plan. More details of the likely significant effects of operation on air quality and odour will be set out in the Environmental statement and will be submitted with our DCO application. If significant effects are identified appropriate mitigation would be proposed. In relation to odour this is subjective and therefore the project is obliged to apply the Environment Agency odour criterion which says that we should not exceed 1.5 odour units per cubic meter of air for 98 per cent of the time during the average year. We achieve this criteria at all sites. It should be noted that 1.5 odour units per cubic metre is barely perceivable by most people and that the average back ground odour in cities is between five to 60 odour units per cubic metre.
13-39
Ref 13.7.15
Objections, issues and concerns No guarantee that the mitigation technology proposed will be delivered or function as stated.
Respondent ID 13485
No. 1
Our response The proposed odour control units would contain activated carbon filters. This is standard technology used worldwide and in the UK. For example the sewage pumping station for the Olympic Park in Stratford has just installed this type of odour control system. If a DCO is granted we anticipate a series of requirements (conditions) that would control the development. We expect that the requirements would secure the provision of the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with the application. The tunnel ventilation system would have a number of redundancies built in and would work as a complete system so that, in the unlikely event of a failure at one site, the required through-put of air could be maintained by increased ventilation elsewhere on the system. The systems would be monitored and replacements for elements such as the passive filters planned in advance of their life's end. Use of air quality monitoring equipment is proposed during the operation of the tunnel as set out in the Air management plan.
Outcome N
13.7.16
Install equipment to monitor air quality and odour effects.
GLA
Historic environment
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment 13.7.17 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the historic environment. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment Table 13.7.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during operation Ref 13.7.18 Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. 1 Our response We have undertaken a preliminary assessment of the likely significant operational effects of the proposed development on historic assets. We recognise that our above-ground structures are likely to have an effect on the wider historical appearance, character, and setting of the overall Embankment along this stretch of the River Thames. The Thames Conservation Area is an asset of high historic significance. We will continue to develop our design in light of your comments and will consult with English Heritage and the RBKC as part of this process. The full effect of the project upon the historic setting of designated/protected heritage assets within the study area including the Thames Conservation Area and the Bazalgette embankment requires further consideration and a full assessment will be set out in the Environmental statement that is submitted with our DCO application. Outcome N
Potential effects on heritage assets will be EH greater than those set out in the consultation material. Do not agree with the assessment of the impact on viewpoints attributed to Year 1 of the operation in Table 11.6.3 on page 201. We are yet to be convinced that the proposed design achieves this effect and we are very concerned about the uncertainty that is currently attached to the maintenance and use of this site.
13.7.19
General effect on local heritage arising from
8089
The operational site layout and visualisations are provided in N
13-40
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns the permanent maintenance and operation of the site.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome our Chelsea Embankment Foreshore site information paper and our Design project information paper sets out the common design principles including respecting each site's individual context and surroundings. Therefore our approach to design has sought to preserve and enhance the setting of heritage assets. At this site this has included taking into account historic views along the River Thames, including the setting of the Grade I listed Royal Hospital Chelsea and Grade II listed Chelsea Bridge. We are continuing to work with English Heritage and the RBKC on design elements. Our PEIR (volume 16, section 7) identifies a possible N operational effect upon archaeological remains, arising from possible change to the scouring patterns of the river and consequent impacts upon downstream archaeological remains due to the permanent cofferdam and new river wall. This could potentially result in erosion or deposition of the foreshore and channel areas. The predicted impact upon the fluvial regime and any archaeological remains on the foreshore will be assessed following a review of hydrological modelling, along with a review of data on past dredging held by the PLA (any archaeological assets would have already been removed in areas of past capital dredging). This will be presented in the Environmental statement together with appropriate mitigation measures.
13.7.20
Effect on archaeology from scour.
EH
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment 13.7.21 13.7.22 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment No objections, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during operation.
Land quality and contamination

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

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) 13.7.25 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) Table 13.7.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during operation Ref 13.7.26 Objections, issues and concerns Effect on foreshore habitat(s), although it is acknowledged that they are of poor species Respondent ID LR9491 No. 1 Our response By intercepting the CSO there would be improvements in water quality, and the improvements to the sewerage Outcome N
13-41
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns diversity.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome system capacity would result in far fewer low dissolved oxygen events and therefore fewer mass fish mortalities. As part of our PEIR (volume 16, section 5) we assessed the likely significant operational effects of the proposed development on aquatic ecology. The PEIR considers the effects on the foreshore and River Thames and concludes the permanent structure would have a low negative impact given its small area and that the improvements to water quality would be a positive effect of the scheme. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We are preparing a full aquatic ecology assessment for submission in the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application, which will also consider the likely significant effects on river flow and fish movements from the permanent structure. We have sought to reduce the amount of foreshore that is lost but, this needs to be balanced with the engineering requirements of our works and the effect on the local townscape in this location. The loss of habitat in the foreshore contributes to an overall loss arising from the project across its in-river sites. Compensation for the loss of habitat is being considered at a project wide level and the ecological improvement opportunities for mitigation and enhancement will be set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) 13.7.27 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on natural environment (aquatic) during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) Table 13.7.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during operation Ref 13.7.28 13.7.29 Objections, issues and concerns Provision of compensation habitat, including refuges for fish and other species. Accumulative land-take of a series of structures along the River Thames, there should be considerations to secure significant positive gains for fish and other aquatic species. Respondent ID LR9491 LR9491 No. 1 1 Our response Outcome
By intercepting the CSO there would be improvements in N water quality, and the improvements to the sewerage system capacity would result in far fewer low dissolved N oxygen events and therefore fewer mass fish mortalities. As part of our PEIR (volume 16, section 5) we assessed the likely significant operational effects of the proposed development on aquatic ecology. The PEIR considers the effects on the foreshore and River Thames and concludes the permanent structure would have a low negative impact given its small area and that the improvements to water quality would be a positive effect of the scheme. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We are preparing a full aquatic ecology assessment for submission in the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application, which will also consider the likely significant effects on river flow and fish movements from the permanent structure. We have sort to reduce the amount of foreshore
13-42
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response that is lost but, this needs to be balanced with the engineering requirements of our works and the effect on the local townscape in this location. The loss of habitat in the foreshore contributes to an overall loss arising from the project across its in-river sites. Compensation for the loss of habitat is being considered at a project wide level and the ecological improvement opportunities for mitigation and enhancement will be set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.
Outcome
Natural environment (terrestrial)

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 13.7.10 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Ref 13.7.30 13.7.31 Supportive and neutral comments Support for replacement of trees. Support efforts to minimise the long-term impacts to biodiversity and secure improvements. Respondent ID RBKC LR9491 No. 1 1 Our response Your comment is noted and welcomed. Your comments are noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 13.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Ref 13.7.32 Objections, issues and concerns General environmental/ecological impact arising from the operation and maintenance of the site. Respondent ID 8089 No. 1 Our response As stated in para 6.1.2 of our PEIR (volume 16, section 6), significant operational effects on terrestrial ecology as a result of the tunnel operation and the infrequent maintenance visits are not anticipated therefore this has not been assessed. A full assessment will be presented in our Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. This will consider the likely significant effects of the development based on a methodology set out in our PEIR. Outcome N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) 13.7.33 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 13.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Ref 13.7.34 13.7.35 Objections, issues and concerns Provision of compensation habitat; put nesting and roosting boxes up. Maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity through an effective mitigation Respondent ID 7404 LR9491 No. 1 1 Our response As stated in paragraph 6.1.2 of our PEIR (volume 16, section 6), we do not anticipate any significant operational effects on terrestrial ecosystems as a result of operations and infrequent maintenance visits; therefore this has not been assessed. A full assessment will be presented in our Outcome N N
13-43
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns package.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response 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 site boundary.
Outcome
13.7.36
Locate permanent works within the site to avoid sensitive and designated areas.
LR9491
Noise and vibration

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to noise and vibration 13.7.37 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to noise and vibration during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration Table 13.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during operation Ref 13.7.38 Objections, issues and concerns It is not clear what the scale of operational noise and vibration effects will be; the assessment to date is very vague. General noise effects arising from the permanent operation and maintenance of the site. Respondent ID 8089 No. 1 Our response Our PEIR (volume 16, section 9) sets out a preliminary assessment of the likely significant operational noise and vibration effects of the proposed scheme. No significant effects were identified, subject to the equipment being specified with appropriate noise control measures to ensure the targets in BS4142 are met. Therefore we do not expect any effect on occupiers or users of adjacent or nearby properties, businesses or facilities, or on any sensitive structures of equipment. The Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application will provide a full assessment of noise and vibration effects. Outcome N
13.7.39
7457
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration 13.7.40 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration Table 13.7.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during operation Ref 13.7.41 Objections, issues and concerns The plant should be designed to ensure compliance with the RBKC LDF Noise SPD. Respondent ID RBKC No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted and we can confirm that our operational plant would comply with all relevant policies and guidance. Outcome N
Open space and recreation

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

13.7.43 No feedback comments were received in relation to planning and development during operation.
13-44
Socio-economic
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects 13.7.44 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 13.7.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during operation Ref 13.7.45 Objections, issues and concerns Detrimental effect on business operations. Respondent ID 8089 No. 1 Our response After the works are complete there would be no detrimental impact on local business as full highway access would be restored. Once the site works are complete we do not believe that the permanent works at this site would affect amenities such as the Royal Hospital Chelsea. As set out in our PEIR our scoping assessment, agreed with the RBKC, concluded that there would be no significant operational effects arising from the site. As set out in our site information paper, vehicles required for site maintenance would normally comprise a small van every three to six months. Periodically (approximately every ten years) there would be a more detailed site inspection, which would require more vehicles, including two cranes. Given the infrequency of these inspections and the low number of vehicles involved there is not considered to be any effect. Outcome N
13.7.46 13.7.47
Proximity of operational site to residential properties.
8089
1 1
N N
Proximity to community and social amenities 8089 such as Royal Hospital Chelsea, physic Gardens. Effect of site maintenance and operation on the local community. General disruption associated with permanent operation and maintenance of the site. 8089 8402
13.7.48 13.7.49
1 1
N N
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects 13.7.50 13.7.51 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during operation Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects 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 13.7.52 13.7.53 13.7.54 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to structures and utilities during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to structures and utilities during operation. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during operation.
13-45
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities Table 13.7.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during operation Ref 13.7.55 Objections, issues and concerns Structural monitoring of buildings. Respondent ID 8089 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 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 because of our construction works taking place nearby, disturbance compensation may be available as detailed in our Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme. Outcome N
Townscape and visual

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to townscape and visual effects Table 13.7.17 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to townscape and visual effects during operation Ref 13.7.56 13.7.57 Supportive and neutral comments Proposals will create new or improved views. Proposals will improve the image and character of the area. Respondent ID 8612 7447 No. 1 1 Our response Your comments are noted and welcomed. Your comments are noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects Table 13.7.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during operation Ref 13.7.58 Objections, issues and concerns Proposals present a disruption to the long linearity of the embankment. Respondent ID RBKC No. 1 Our response The indicative site layout and visualisations for this site are provided in our Chelsea Embankment Foreshore site Outcome N
13-46
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response information paper, and our Design project information paper sets out the common design principles for each site, including respecting the context and surroundings of each site. A preliminary assessment of likely significant townscape and visual effects has also been undertaken and is presented in the PEIR (volume 16, section 11). Our approach to design has sought to preserve and enhance the setting of the site. Specific design measures at this site include continuation of the historical axis from the Royal Hospital Chelsea to respect the setting of this Grade I listed building. However, we recognise the visual sensitivities of the area and the importance of protecting the character of the wider conservation area. We will continue to develop our design of the permanent structures to ensure visual effects from our works are minimised. An assessment of the likely significant effects of the final design on townscape character and views will be presented in our Environmental statement, which will form part of our DCO application.
Outcome
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual 13.7.59 13.7.60 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual No objections, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on townscape and visual during operation.
Transport and access

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access Table 13.7.19 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to transport and access during operation Ref 13.7.61 Supportive and neutral comments Supportive/general comment of the Thames Path re-provision. Respondent ID RBKC No. 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access Table 13.7.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during operation Ref 13.7.62 Objections, issues and concerns It is not clear what the scale of the effect on transport and access will be; the assessment to date is very vague; impacts of these changes on highway capacity, safety etc need assessing. Maintenance traffic will cause traffic congestion. Maintenance traffic will exacerbate existing traffic congestion. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response Outcome
13.7.63 13.7.64
8089 7271
1 1
Our PEIR (volume 16, section 12) sets out a preliminary N assessment of the transport effects of the operational phase. We are preparing a full Transport assessment for submission as part of our DCO application. As set out in the site information paper, vehicles required for site maintenance would normally comprise a small van every N three to six months. Periodically (approximately every ten years) there would be a more detailed site inspection, N requiring more vehicles including two cranes. Given the infrequency of these inspections and the low number of
13-47
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response vehicles involved no traffic effect is expected.
Outcome
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access 13.7.65 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access Table 13.7.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during operation Ref 13.7.66 Objections, issues and concerns Provide suitable Thames Path on completion. Use the river rather than road to undertake maintenance work and for on-going access. Respondent ID 8612 No. 1 Our response At this location the route of the Thames Path would be returned to the existing riverside alignment once the works were complete. Details of the site maintenance activities were set out in our site information paper. The maintenance works require access to the plant and structures and therefore it is not likely to be feasible to access these from the river. We can confirm that our design would maintain disable vehicle access to adjoining amenities. Outcome N
13.7.67
7457
13.7.68
Maintain disabled vehicle access to adjoining amenities.
GLA
Water and flood risk

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to water and flood risk 13.7.69 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to water and flood risk during operation Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk Table 13.7.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during operation Ref 13.7.70 Objections, issues and concerns Proposals will result in river erosion and scour. Respondent ID 8089 No. 1 Our response We are carrying out fluvial modelling of the temporary foreshore works to establish the likely significant effects of the development on the river, and will discuss the findings with the PLA and Environment Agency. We are also undertaking scour modelling. Our design would incorporate mitigation measures to manage any permanent effects of our works on the river. We are carrying out fluvial modelling to establish the effects of the development on the river and will discuss the findings with the PLA and Environment Agency. Outcome N
13.7.71
Possible siltation arising from permanent structures and operational activities.
8089
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk 13.7.72 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during operation
13-48
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk Table 13.7.23 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during operation Ref 13.7.73 Objections, issues and concerns Incorporation of SuDS. Respondent ID RBKC No. 1 Our response As the site is located within the foreshore, no storage volume/attenuation would be provided as surface water associated with the impermeable surfaces of the site would be discharged directly to the River Thames. This is considered to be an appropriate approach given that any precipitation falling onto the foreshore site currently lands directly in the River Thames, and the discharge of runoff therefore effectively occurs with no attenuation. Outcome N
13.8
13.8.1 13.8.2
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. Chelsea Embankment Foreshore therefore remains our preferred site to intercept the Ranelagh CSO and to construct a connection to the northern Low Level Sewer No.1 to divert flows into 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 and short tunnel excavated materials in order to reduce the number of lorries on local roads revisions to the design of the proposed foreshore structure to incorporate design suggestions including changes to the roundabout and kerb layout in the bull ring , vent columns to be designed as public art (or incorporating public art) and incorporation of visual interpretive material the location of the kiosks and pedestrian refuge is being reconsidered to ensure that visual clutter is avoided.
13.8.3
13.8.4
In our SOCC we recognised that we may need to amend our scheme following phase two consultation and that if changes came forward we would consi der whether targeted consultation is appropriate. We do not consider that the degree of change in relation to this site or the effect on the local community would affect the nature of the comments received during phase two consultation in such a way as to require further consultation. On that basis, a round of targeted consultation on our proposals for this site is not considered necessary. We will progress with preparation of our application for a development consent order and will incorporate the changes referred to in paragraph 13.8.3 if further work demonstrates that this is appropriate. We intend to publicise our proposed application in accordance with Section 48 of the Planning Act 2008 later in 2012. Full details of our proposed scheme will be set out in our DCO application and the accompanying documents.
13-49

Supp Report On P2 Consultation - Chapter 13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Supp Report On P2 Consultation - Chapter 13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

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

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

Thames Tunnel Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

Structure of this chapter

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

Respondent ID 9299, LR9447 RBKC

Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.

7807 GLA, PLA, 9078

due to effect on A3212

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

Supportive and neutral comments

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

The cost of using the site is too high/not cost-effective.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

Objections, issues and concerns

Site selection should avoid greenfield sites and open space.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

South of the River Thames. Battersea Park.

7212 8089, 8814

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

Management of construction works

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

General feedback comments on the identified key issues

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues

Air quality and odour

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

Construction working hours and programme

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

Construction site design and layout

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

GLA, 8612 8612

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

Objections, issues and concerns

Effect of construction activities on archaeology.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation