Supp Report On P2 Consultation - Chapter 5 Hammer Smith Pumping Station

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

Chapter 5 Hammersmith Pumping Station
5 Hammersmith Pumping Station
Thames Tunnel Supplementary report on phase two consultation

List of contents
Page number
Hammersmith Pumping Station ................................................................... 5-1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 Introduction ........................................................................................... 5-1 Number of respondents ........................................................................ 5-2 Site selection ........................................................................................ 5-2 Alternative sites .................................................................................... 5-6 Management of construction works ...................................................... 5-6 Permanent design and appearance .................................................... 5-22 Management of operational effects .................................................... 5-25 Our view of the way forward ............................................................... 5-34
List of tables Table 5.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on Hammersmith Pumping Station ................................................................................. 5-2 Table 5.3.1 Views on whether Hammersmith Pumping Station should be our preferred site (Q2) .............................................................................. 5-3 Table 5.3.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to selection of our preferred site ............................................................................ 5-3 Table 5.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection of our preferred site ...................................................................................... 5-4 Table 5.3.4 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to shortlisted sites ................................................................................... 5-5 Table 5.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to Hammersmith Pumping Station .......... 5-6 Table 5.4.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites .......................................................... 5-6 Table 5.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q4a) ................................................................... 5-7 Table 5.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q4b)............................................................................... 5-7 Table 5.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues during construction .................................................................. 5-8 Table 5.5.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address key issues during construction .......................... 5-8 Table 5.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on air quality and odour during construction ........................................................................................ 5-9 Table 5.5.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme ...................................................................... 5-10 Table 5.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns for the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction 5-10 Table 5.5.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination during construction .................................................... 5-11 Table 5.5.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction .................................... 5-12 Table 5.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction ......................................................... 5-13 Table 5.5.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction ...................................................................................... 5-14 Table 5.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during construction .......................................................... 5-15
Table 5.5.13 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to planning and development during construction ............................................... 5-15 Table 5.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development during construction ...................................................... 5-15 Table 5.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during construction ................................................................ 5-16 Table 5.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during construction ............................................................... 5-17 Table 5.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during construction ...................................................................................... 5-18 Table 5.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction...................................................... 5-19 Table 5.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction ............................................................... 5-19 Table 5.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access issues during construction .......................................................................... 5-21 Table 5.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during construction ........................................................................... 5-22 Table 5.6.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right issues that have influenced our permanent design for this site? (Q5) ......................... 5-22 Table 5.6.2 Please give us your views about our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site (Q6) ........................................... 5-23 Table 5.6.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site.................................................... 5-23 Table 5.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site.................................................... 5-23 Table 5.6.5 Design suggestions .......................................................................... 5-24 Table 5.7.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q7a) ................................................................. 5-25 Table 5.7.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q7b)............................................................................. 5-26 Table 5.7.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues during operation .................................................................... 5-26 Table 5.7.4 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation ...... 5-27 Table 5.7.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation ...................... 5-27 Table 5.7.6 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour during operation ................................................... 5-28
Table 5.7.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation air quality and odour during operation................................................................................ 5-28 Table 5.7.8 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation................................................................................ 5-29 Table 5.7.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation land quality and contamination during operation ........................................................ 5-29 Table 5.7.10 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation ......................................... 5-30 Table 5.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation ............................................................. 5-30 Table 5.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during operation................................................................................ 5-30 Table 5.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during operation ............................................................... 5-31 Table 5.7.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation effects during operation .................................................................... 5-32 Table 5.7.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during operation .................................................................... 5-32 Table 5.7.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during operation .................................................................... 5-33
5
5.1
5.1.1 5.1.2
Hammersmith Pumping Station

Introduction
This chapter covers the feedback comments received during phase two consultation regarding our preferred site Hammersmith Pumping Station. This site would be used to connect the existing local combined sewer overflow (CSO), known as the Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO, to the main tunnel. At phase one consultation, Hammersmith Pumping Station was our preferred site to intercept the Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO. The site was also identified as our preferred site to receive the main tunnel from Barn Elms and drive the long connection tunnel to Acton Storm Tanks. However, following a review of the tunnelling strategy, Hammersmith Pumping Station is no longer identified as our preferred site to drive or receive the main tunnel. For further information regarding the proposals for this site at phase two consultation, refer to the Hammersmith Pumping Station site information paper. As part of our phase two consultation, we identified four shortlisted sites to intercept the Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO. These shortlisted sites are: Foreshore, adjacent to Chancellors Wharf (site 1) Frank Banfield Park (site 2) Adjacent to Hammersmith Pumping Station, Chancellor s Road (site 3) Thames Water Depot and Pumping Station, Chancellors Road (site 4).
5.1.3
5.1.4
Where feedback comments were received on any of these shortlisted sites, they are presented in section 5.3 (site selection) and section 5.4 (alternative sites) of this chapter.
Structure of this chapter

5.1.5 This chapter is organised as listed below, which reflects the structure of the phase two consultation feedback form: section 5.2 Number of respondents 5.1.6 section 5.3 Site selection section 5.4 Alternative sites section 5.5 Management of construction works section 5.6 Permanent design and appearance section 5.7 Management of operational effects section 5.8 Our view of the way forward.
In sections 5.3 to 5.7 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. 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.
5.1.7 5.1.8
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.
5-1
5.2
5.2.1
Number of respondents
A total of 36 respondents provided feedback on Hammersmith Pumping Station, of which six were received after the close of phase two consultation. Table 5.2.1 sets out the different groups who provided feedback for this site. Table 5.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on Hammersmith Pumping Station Statutory consultees 6 respondents - Design Council CABE (CABE) - Consumer Council for Water (CCW) - English Heritage (EH) - Environment Agency (EA) - Greater London Authority (GLA) - National Grid (NG) Local authorities 1 respondent - London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF) Landowners 0 respondents Community consultees 29 respondents Petitions 0 petitions
5.2.2
Feedback on this site was received in a number of forms, including feedback forms and correspondence (emails and letters).
5.3
5.3.1
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.
5.3.2
The results of the site selection process up to phase two consultation are set out in: Site information papers, which provide summary information on each of our preferred sites, including the reasons for selecting them Phase two scheme development report, which describes how our proposals for the Thames Tunnel project have evolved and provides a detailed account of the site selection process for each of the preferred sites.
5.3.3
5.3.4
In this section, we set out the feedback comments received in relation to the selection of Hammersmith Pumping Station as our preferred site, together with our responses. Our responses provide relevant details of the site selection process and its findings up to phase two consultation. Where appropriate we have also identified further work that we have undertaken in relation to our preferred site, such as the preparation of our Preliminary environmental information report (PEIR). As part of the project design development process, we continue to assess how the effects arising from the proposed development can be addressed. The output of our assessment up to phase two consultation is contained in appendix B of the Design development report and our PEIR (volume 8). Where respondents commented on matters in relation to management of construction works, permanent design and appearance or the management of operational effects at Hammersmith Pumping Station, these comments are reported in sections 5.5 to 5.7.
Number of respondents
5.3.5 During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked to comment on the decision to select Hammersmith Pumping Station as our preferred site to intercept the Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO (see question 2 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in Appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). Table 5.3.1 sets out details of the different groups who responded and were asked to select supportive, opposed/concerned or dont know/unsure. Tables 5.3.2 and 5.3.4 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.
5-2
Table 5.3.1 Views on whether Hammersmith Pumping Station should be our preferred site (Q2) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 1 1 0 19 0 21 14 6 1 12 6 1 Supportive 1
- EA
Opposed/concerned
Dont know/unsure
1
- LBHF
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to our preferred site Table 5.3.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to selection of our preferred site Ref 5.3.6 Supportive and neutral comments Support the use of the preferred site and in particular the use of a land-based site on Thames Water owned land. The preferred site is more suitable than any alternative site. The preferred site is more suitable than any of the shortlisted sites because it would be least disruptive to the local community. It is a brownfield site. The site is currently vacant/derelict/ available for redevelopment. Other supportive comments included that it should be the preferred site because it will be contained within an existing construction site at Hammersmith Embankment/Fulham Reach. Qualified support for the preferred site: - subject to proof that it is necessary Respondent ID EA, LBHF, LR9418, LR9447 No. 4 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
5.3.7 5.3.8
GLA, 7623, 8098 8666, 8790
3 2
5.3.9 5.3.10 5.3.11
8028 8028 8790
1 1 1
Noted. The preferred site is brownfield land and was one of the considerations taken into account as part of our site selection process. Noted.
5.3.12
EH, 8831
The needs case for the Thames Tunnel project is set out in detail in the Needs report, which is available on our website. It is also summarised in a non-technical form in our publications Why does London need the Thames Tunnel? and Why does Londons economy need the Thames Tunnel? The need for the project has been confirmed and reaffirmed both by the past and present governments. This was made clear in written ministerial statements to Parliament in September 2010 and again in November 2011. Further reinforcement of the need for the project is contained in the documents published by Defra in November
5-3
Ref
Supportive and neutral comments
Respondent ID
No.
Our response 2011 Creating a River Thames fit for our future: a strategic and economic case for the Thames Tunnel and Costs and benefits of the Thames Tunnel. The National Policy Statement (NPS) for Waste Water, which was designated on 26 March 2012, clearly states that the need for the project has been demonstrated. It concludes that detailed investigations have confirmed the case for a Thames Tunnel as the preferred solution. The designation of the NPS was supported by an Appraisal of Sustainability Post-Adoption Statement which contains further detail on the significant amount of work undertaken to establish the need for the Thames Tunnel project and assess alternative options, on the basis of which the Government considers that the need for the project has been established. Having regard to the extensive work that has been undertaken since 2000, as detailed in the reports mentioned above, we consider that the need for the project has been clearly demonstrated. The Environment Agency has identified the most polluting CSOs, which cause unacceptable environmental impacts because of the frequency or volume of the overflow, or because they discharge into an environmentally sensitive part of the River Thames. In relation to the Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO, the Needs report identifies this CSO as being within the category of CSOs which most urgently need to be addressed. Table 4.2 of the Needs report provides further details. Since selecting Hammersmith Pumping Station as our preferred site, we have begun assessing the likely significant effects that may arise as a result of the works as part of an environmental impact assessment. This will set out measures necessary to mitigate any likely significant adverse effects that are identified. An Environmental statement, which records the findings of the environmental impact assessment, will accompany our DCO application.
- subject to appropriate assessment and
mitigation.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to our preferred site Table 5.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection of our preferred site Ref 5.3.13 Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. 1 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, Hammersmith Pumping Station is the most suitable. This is because it is a brownfield site with good access and the construction
There are other more suitable alternative 7372 sites available in the local area and alternative sites have been properly considered. The school playing fields across the River Thames would be a suitable site.
5-4
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns
Respondent ID
No.
Our response works could be coordinated with the proposed mixed use development at Hammersmith Embankment/Fulham Reach. The shaft is located further away from existing residential dwellings than at the other shortlisted sites. CSOs are in fixed locations and the site to intercept the CSO needs to on the line of, or in close proximity to, the sewer. The suggested alternative site is too far away from Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO and therefore is not suitable as a CSO interception site. For further details on the results of the site selection process, including our assessment of shortlisted sites, refer to appendix B 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. Given the location of Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO it is not possible to avoid this builtup area. Refer to paragraph 2.2.32 for our response to this feedback comment.
5.3.14
Site selection should avoid sites in residential and/ or densely populated areas.
7372
5.3.15
Disagree with/not commenting on site selection due to wider objections to the proposed solution and/or the need for the project. Other concerns, issues and objections included, respondent does not believe that talks have taken place fully to save on costs.
8083, 8831
5.3.16
7372
We can confirm that the cost of our proposals is an on-going consideration as part of the design development process. It should be noted that the overall costs for the proposals can only be determined after site selection and once more detailed design work has been undertaken.
Shortlisted sites
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to shortlisted sites Table 5.3.4 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to shortlisted sites Ref 5.3.17 Supportive and neutral comments Pleased to note that St Pauls School playing fields are no longer identified as a shortlisted site. Objection to the use of this site is maintained until Thames Water finalises its proposals and selection of the preferred site. Use of the playing fields would have significant adverse impacts on their use and the school's planned renewal programme. Any shortlisted site is acceptable subject to appropriate mitigation. Respondent ID 13467 No. 1 Our response Your comments are noted.
5.3.18
EH
Based on our assessment we consider that, on balance, Hammersmith Pumping Station is the most suitable site. This is because it is a brownfield site with good access and the construction works could be
5-5
Ref
Supportive and neutral comments
Respondent ID
No.
Our response coordinated with the proposed mixed use development at Hammersmith Embankment/Fulham Reach. For further details on the results of the site selection process, refer to appendix B of the Phase two scheme development report.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites 5.3.19 No objections, issues or concerns were raised in relation to shortlisted sites.
5.4
5.4.1
Alternative sites
During phase two consultation, respondents were invited to suggest alternative sites that they thought should be used to intercept the Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO instead of Hammersmith Pumping Station (see question 3 of the phase two feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The following sites were put forward as possible alternatives: Table 5.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to Hammersmith Pumping Station Ref 5.4.2 Alternative site suggestion Across the river. Reasons School playing fields would be affected, which would have less impact than the effect on a large number of people and their living conditions. Respondent ID 7372 No. 1 Our response 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 too far away from Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO and therefore are not suitable as a CSO interception sites.
Other sites
5.4.3 5.4.4 5.4.5 5.4.6
Less congested sites in richer areas. Further upriver. Sites away from built-up areas. Less intensive recreational usage in the area. Less upheaval to local residents.
7372 7036 7372
1 1 1
Respondents also made the following feedback comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites: Supportive and neutral feedback comments Table 5.4.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites Ref 5.4.7 Supportive and neutral comments No alternative sites are available; Thames Water has done their best to survey alternative sites. Respondent ID 7404 No. 1 Our response Your support is welcomed and noted.
Objections, issues and concerns 5.4.8 No objections, issues and concerns were raised in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites.
5.5
5.5.1
Management of construction works

This section sets out feedback comments received during the phase two consultation in relation to the management of construction works at Hammersmith Pumping Station. This includes the identification of site specific issues arising from construction activities and proposals to address the effects of these issues.
5-6
5.5.2
During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with Hammersmith Pumping Station during construction and the ways to address these issues (see questions 4a and 4b of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The first part of question 4a and 4b asked respondents to select agree, disagree or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in tables 5.5.1 and 5.5.2. Tables 5.5.3 to 5.5.21 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 5.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q4a) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 1 0 19 0 20 12 7 1 12 6 1 1 - LBHF Yes No Dont know/unsure
Table 5.5.2 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 5.5.3 Number of respondents Total 0 0 0 19 0 19 11 6 2 11 6 2 Yes No Dont know/unsure
The following sections set out the feedback comments received from respondents in relation to the identification of key issues associated with Hammersmith Pumping Station during construction and our proposals to address these issues. Comments are organised under common themes. The themes are: General themes: General feedback comments on key issues General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues
Topic-based themes Air quality and odour Construction working hours and programme Noise and vibration Open space and recreation Planning and development
5-7
Construction site design and layout Historic environment Land quality and contamination Lighting Natural environment (aquatic) Natural environment (terrestrial)
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 5.5.4 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to general comments on the identified key issues during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues Table 5.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues during construction Ref 5.5.5 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 Hammersmith Pumping Station site information paper are intended to provide a broad overview of potential effects and the most significant 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 and assessed is provided in other technical reports, including the PEIR (volume 8), Phase two scheme development report appendix B and site selection methodology and background papers. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Outcome N
5.5.6
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 5.5.7 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address key issues during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues Table 5.5.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address key issues during construction Ref 5.5.8 5.5.9 Objections, issues and concerns More information on measures to address issues is needed. Other issues and comments relating to measures to address construction issues include that construction impacts must be Respondent ID 8402 GLA No. 1 1 Our response We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. As part of this, we carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. Outcome N N
5-8
Ref
Objections, issues and concerns minimised at every stage of construction.
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome We have sought to avoid or eliminate likely significant effects wherever possible, by developing robust technical solutions to potential construction issues such as odour. Information on proposed measures to address issues can be found in the PEIR (volume 8). We are also developing our Code of Construction Practice (CoCP), a draft of which was available as part of our phase two consultation, which will set out how we will manage our construction sites to minimise disruption to nearby communities. Measures proposed to address likely significant effects are being further developed and considered as part of the environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.
Air quality and odour

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour 5.5.10 5.5.11 5.5.12 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to air quality and odour during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to air quality and odour issues during construction. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address air quality and odour 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 5.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on air quality and odour during construction Ref 5.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns The GLA and London Council's Best Practice Guidance (BPG) The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition should be implemented. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response We can confirm that the best practice guidance has been taken into account in developing our proposals for this site. Our draft CoCP sets out measures for managing our works as well as details of the various regulatory regimes and guidance that we would need to comply with, such as the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Mayor of London's Ambient Noise Strategy 2004 and The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition - Best Practice Guidance 2008, as well as various British Standards. Outcome N
Construction working hours and programme

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction working hours and programme 5.5.14 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to construction working hours and programme.
5-9
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme Table 5.5.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme Ref 5.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns The construction programme is unclear. Respondent ID 8402 No. 1 Our response Outcome
The overall project programme is set out in the Timing N project information paper. Details relating to the site specific construction programme for this site are set out in the Hammersmith Pumping Station site information paper, which indicates construction works lasting for a period of approximately two and a half years.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction working hours and programme 5.5.16 5.5.17 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of construction working hours and programme. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of construction working hours and programme No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of construction working hours and programme.
Construction site design and layout

5.5.18 No feedback comments were received in relation to construction site design and layout.
Historic environment
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment 5.5.19 5.5.20 5.5.21 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 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the historic environment during construction. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment 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 5.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns for the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction Ref 5.5.22 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on historic environment mitigation. Respondent ID EH No. 1 Our response An assessment of the likely significant effects on the historic environment is being completed as a part of our environmental impact assessment. We are consulting with English Heritage as a part of this process. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Additionally, our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) sets out a range of measures to safeguard the historic environment during construction. We will also notify English Heritage and the LBHF prior to undertaking works and will continue to engage with them closely on the planning of the works. Outcome N
5-10
Ref 5.5.23
Objections, issues and concerns Other heritage mitigation including historic building recording, in accordance with English Heritage standards, of the pumping station itself, together with appropriate publication and dissemination.
Respondent ID EH
No. 1
Our response Our works are proposed in and around the 1960s Hammersmith Pumping Station, which has been identified as being of low heritage value. As such we do not believe that the proposed minor changes to the building warrant recording as suggested.
Outcome N
Land quality and contamination

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to land quality and contamination 5.5.24 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 5.5.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination during construction Ref 5.5.25 Objections, issues and concerns There is potential for contamination within the site boundary. Respondent ID 8402 No. 1 Our response Outcome
As set out in the PEIR (volume 8, section 8), baseline N conditions at the site have been assessed through the analysis of available desk-based data, a site walkover and preliminary intrusive ground investigations. While the historic land use record suggests a potential for land contamination, no specific and likely significant effects have been identified to date. However, in advance of construction, further ground investigations will be undertaken to identify sources of contamination and mitigate them as deemed necessary. Further details will be provided within the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. 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 in advance of construction.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination 5.5.26 5.5.27 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination during construction.
Lighting
5.5.28 No feedback comments were received in relation to lighting issues during construction.
Natural environment (aquatic)

5.5.29 No feedback comments were received in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) issues during construction.
5-11
Natural environment (terrestrial)

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) 5.5.30 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 5.5.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Ref 5.5.31 Objections, issues and concerns Loss of trees arising from construction activities. Respondent ID 8880 No. 1 Our response Outcome
5.5.32
More information is needed on the effect of construction activities on the natural environment.
LR9491
Development at this site will result in the loss of some N existing trees and vegetation. We are in discussions with the developer of the proposed Hammersmith Embankment/ Fulham Reach development regarding their plans for this part of the site, which would include any mitigation planting, if necessary. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include an assessment of the likely significant effects on trees arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and N comprehensive consultation exercise. We carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. This included our PEIR (volume 8, section 6) which sets out our initial assessment of likely significant effects on the terrestrial ecology (habitats and notable species) from construction site activities and site clearance activities including tree removal; ground excavation; movements of construction workers, traffic and machinery, which would produce noise, vibration and lighting; and a short period of 24-hour working. The proposals set out in our draft CoCP are included in the assessment. We believe that sufficient information is available regarding the construction phase in the consultation documents such as our draft CoCP and PEIR (volume 8). We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient. Further assessment of likely significant effects on the natural environment will be undertaken as part of our on-going environmental impact assessment work. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient. Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects on wildlife associated with the construction of the tunnel is N
5.5.33
Should consider the importance of any existing buildings for protected species.
LR9447
5-12
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response set out in our PEIR (volume 8, section 6) which identifies the existing buildings on the site and notes that these appear in good condition and are considered sub-optimal for bats. The significance of effects of the development on habitats for protected and notable species will be assessed in line with the methodology that has been agreed with the local authority and reported in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of the DCO application.
Outcome
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) 5.5.34 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) issues during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 5.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Ref 5.5.35 Objections, issues and concerns Locate construction activities within the site to avoid sensitive and designated areas. Respondent ID LR9491 No. 1 Our response All construction works will be contained within the limits of land to be acquired or used, as illustrated in the Hammersmith Pumping Station site information paper. We believe that the integration of our works within the grounds of the existing Thames Water pumping station and the new redevelopment scheme, which has been cleared ready for development, will minimise the impact on surrounding sensitive areas. Outcome N
5.5.36
Other natural environment mitigation included: - maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity through an effective mitigation package - should take steps to secure the long-term protection of any protected species which may be impacted.
LR9447, LR9491
Details of proposed mitigation measures and initial ecology N surveys for the site were set out in the PEIR (volume 8, section 6) as part of our phase two consultation. As completion of our surveys has taken place we are confirming the presence or absence of species and habitats and are developing mitigation measures as necessary. Our draft CoCP sets out a range of measures that would be implemented to control and limit disturbance, and likely significant effects will be assessed in our environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.
Noise and vibration

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to noise and vibration 5.5.37 5.5.38 5.5.39 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to noise and vibration during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation noise and vibration during construction. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction.
5-13
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration Table 5.5.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction Ref 5.5.40 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on noise and vibration mitigation, including fully defining how noise will be controlled how control measures will be enforced. Respondent ID 7623 No. 1 Our response Outcome
Our PEIR (volume 8, section 9) sets out our initial qualitative N 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. The proposals set out in our draft CoCP are included in the assessment. The PEIR assessment used Defra's London noise maps. Our Environmental statement, which will be submitted with our DCO application, will include a full assessment of likely significant noise and vibration effects that will be completed in line with the methodology that is compliant with BS5228, BS6472 and BS7385 and has been agreed with the LBHF. 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 a 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 measures to minimise noise and vibration as well as any appropriate monitoring measures to be agreed with local authority environmental health officers. Our PEIR (volume 8, section 9) sets out a preliminary assessment of noise and vibration which assumes the use of site enclosures, and temporary stockpiles, where practicable and necessary, to provide acoustic screening. At this site a site hoarding of 2.8m is proposed. This would exceed the request for a 2.4m hoarding. N
5.5.41
Erect site hoarding of at least 2.4m for site boundaries close to residential properties.
GLA
Open space and recreation

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to open space and recreation 5.5.42 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to open space and recreation during construction.
5-14
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation Table 5.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during construction Ref 5.5.43 Objections, issues and concerns Effect on river navigation, recreational river users and access to and recreational enjoyment of the riverfront. This part of the river is in a high use area, not just in terms of the rowers, but also jogging/walking trails on either side of the river at this point. Respondent ID 7036 No. 1 Our response Outcome
Where practical and cost effective we will transport materials N by barge. At this site we believe that transporting materials by barge is not possible because the site is not immediately adjacent to the river it would be necessary to convey materials or transfer materials by road to a suitable access point to the river. Furthermore, the site is separated from the River Thames by the St George Plc development site. Therefore, we do not believe that the construction works proposed at this site would have an effect on river navigation or recreational river users.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation 5.5.44 5.5.45 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 or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation during construction.
Planning and development

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to planning and development Table 5.5.13 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to planning and development during construction Ref 5.5.46 5.5.47 Supportive and neutral comments Proposal will support redevelopment of the site and/or surrounding area. The necessary works at this site can be coordinated with the phased mixed use development by St George Plc of the Hammersmith Embankment/Fulham Reach site. Respondent ID LBHF, LR9418 8666 No. 2 1 Our response Your comments are noted and welcomed. Your comment is noted.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development Table 5.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development during construction Ref 5.5.48 Objections, issues and concerns Compatibility with existing planning permission adjacent to/in the vicinity of the site. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response We have worked with the developers (St George Plc) to establish a programme of works that will facilitate both the construction of the tunnel and phased commencement of their development. We have also aligned our proposals for both the construction and permanent layout and design of the site to complement the developers proposals. This agreement is referred to in the developers planning permission. Outcome N
5-15
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development 5.5.49 5.5.50 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development during construction.
Socio-economic
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects 5.5.51 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 issues Table 5.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during construction Ref 5.5.52 Objections, issues and concerns Proximity to residential properties, commercial premises and public open space. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response Outcome
Our site selection process, as detailed in our Site selection N methodology paper included an assessment of the shortlisted sites against five 'community' considerations to help determine their suitability. They included proximity to sensitive receptors (including residential and schools), socio economic, health and equality considerations. Our Phase two scheme development report provides an overview of how each site was chosen. Our PEIR (volume 8, section 10) provides a preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the project on residential amenity and acknowledges residents could be vulnerable to changes in amenity arising from the construction process. This is due to the fact that residents cannot easily take steps to avoid any in-combination amenity effects that may arise. Residents could be less sensitive to any noise disturbance during the day and more sensitive during the evening and at night-time, particularly during sleeping hours. The sensitivity of residents to amenity impacts may be mediated by the character and mix of uses currently existing in the area. The construction processes would be mostly limited to daytime working hours, with the exception of occasional evening working to facilitate concrete pours. The measures set out in our draft CoCP will contribute to managing these effects and have been incorporated in the preliminary assessment of likely significant effects set out in our PEIR (volume 8) at phase two consultation. Our PEIR (volume 8, section 11) also provides a preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the project on public open space and acknowledges that users of Frank Banfield Park, located to the immediate east of the proposed development site, could be vulnerable to effects on the park arising from the construction process. This is because there is a proposal to move the gates on the western side of the park (Distillery Road) a short distance to the south in order
5-16
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome to align the entrance to the park with a new pedestrian avenue that is proposed as part of the Hammersmith Embankment/Fulham Reach development planning application. However, this effect may be mediated by the availability of ten childrens play areas within approximately 800m of the site and other alternative open spaces in the wider area (Lillie Road Recreation ground, Furnival Gardens). We are preparing an environmental impact assessment that will be submitted as part of our DCO application. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects 5.5.53 5.5.54 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects.
Structures and utilities

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to structures and utilities 5.5.55 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to structures and utilities during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities Table 5.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during construction Ref 5.5.56 Objections, issues and concerns Structural damage to residential buildings arising from tunnelling. Respondent ID 13469 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. We acknowledge that construction of the tunnel will cause some small movements in the ground, the level of which will depend on a range of factors including 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, will carry out protective measures. We will also monitor actual ground movement during and after the tunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted. We will also carry out a defects survey on buildings located Outcome N
5-17
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response over, or close to, our tunnels and worksites where we consider this necessary. The method used for assessing settlement is the same as 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
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on structures and utilities 5.5.57 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities Table 5.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during construction Ref 5.5.58 Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 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. We acknowledge that construction of the tunnel will cause some small movements in the ground, the level of which will depend on a range of factors including 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, will carry out protective measures. We will also monitor actual ground movement during and after the tunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted. We will also carry out a defects survey on buildings located over, or close to, our tunnels and worksites where we consider this necessary. The method used for assessing settlement is the same as 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. Any utilities close to or within our sites would be surveyed prior to and protected during construction. We do not consider the presence of the electricity cable to be a factor that would preclude development at this site, but we will liaise with National Grid regarding our emerging design. Outcome N
More information is needed on mitigation 8880 and how it would be assessed including details of what will be done for residents and businesses whose properties are damaged due to subsidence.
5.5.59
The site is located directly adjacent to National Grid's high voltage underground electricity transmission cable between Wimbledon substation and Willesden substation.
NG
5-18
Townscape and visual

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to townscape and visual effects 5.5.60 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects Table 5.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction Ref 5.5.61 Objections, issues and concerns Effect of construction activities and structures on the character of the riverside/ river frontage. Respondent ID 8402 No. 1 Our response Outcome
The effect of construction activity on the character of the N local area would be for a temporary period only. Our draft CoCP sets out measures that will ensure that the construction site would be well operated and maintained. We do not believe that our works at this site will have an effect on the character of the riverside/riverfront as the site is separated from the River Thames by the St George Plc development site. Measures to minimise likely significant effects, such as use of suitable screening around the construction site will be set out in the CoCP and the Environmental statement to be submitted with our DCO application.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual 5.5.62 5.5.63 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual during construction.
Transport and access

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access 5.5.64 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to transport and access during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access Table 5.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction Ref 5.5.65 Objections, issues and concerns Construction traffic will cause traffic congestion and affect access to local hospitals. Construction traffic will exacerbate existing traffic congestion on the Fulham Palace Road (A219) and Hammersmith Gyratory. Respondent ID 7372 No. 1 Our response Outcome
5.5.66
GLA, 7271, 7372
Access to this site is proposed from Distillery Road via N Chancellor's Road where vehicles would follow Fulham Palace Road (A219) to the Hammersmith Gyratory before joining the A4, as illustrated in the Hammersmith Pumping N Station site information paper. We are reviewing the proposed routes that construction traffic would use as part of our transport assessment. We are also developing a CoCP, (a draft was provided as part of our phase two consultation), which will include requirements for a Traffic management plan to ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled to minimise any likely significant effects on the road network including access to the local area, as well as setting out construction
5-19
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome traffic routes, site access/egress points, signage and monitoring procedures. It is expected that at the peak of construction (year one) an average of 13 lorries would visit (travelling to and from) the site each working day, as indicated in the PEIR (volume 8, section 12). 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 as well as appropriate mitigation measures. Some on-street car parking along Chancellors Road will be temporarily lost during construction. Our transport assessment and environmental impact assessment will consider the likely significant effects of the loss of car parking and the findings will be reported in the Transport assessment and Environmental statement submitted with our DCO application. We are currently considering possible alternative locations for replacement of on-street parking and are working with the LBHF on the need and where appropriate alternative position of spaces. C
5.5.67
The proposed access route to the site will result in the loss of on-street car parking at Chancellors Road.
LBHF, LR9418
5.5.68
Construction traffic will have an effect on road safety.
GLA
We will design site accesses and operate all of our N construction sites to ensure that they meet design, health and safety standards. We are developing a CoCP (a draft of which was provided as part of our phase two consultation), which will include requirements for a Traffic management plan to ensure that construction traffic 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. We will require our contractor to ensure the proposals do not endanger safe school access. The Transport assessment will also review data relating to recent accidents. The proposals will be subject to independent external review by TfL and the local highway authority to ensure proposed highway layouts and vehicle movement arrangements are as safe as possible. Where practical and cost effective we will transport materials N by barge. However, at this site transporting materials by barge is not considered viable because we anticipate that by the time of our construction the adjacent St George Plc mixed-use development along the river frontage will have been constructed and occupied. However, nearer the time of construction we will consider whether there are any opportunities for further use of river transport as part of the project, and our contractor could also propose further use of
5.5.69
The site is not suitable for using the River Thames to transport materials.
LBHF, LR9418
5-20
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome the river to transport materials, or consolidation centres or possibly working with St George Plc to share a facility for the importation of materials.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access 5.5.70 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 5.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access issues during construction Ref 5.5.71 Objections, issues and concerns Provide a suitable and safe Thames Path diversion. Make provision for alternative car parking. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response Our footpath diversions will be designed to meet all appropriate design and safety standards and will be agreed with TfL and the LBHF. Some on-street car parking along Chancellors Road will be temporarily lost during construction. Our transport assessment and environmental impact assessment will consider the likely significant effects of the loss of car parking and the findings will be reported in the Transport assessment and Environmental statement submitted with our DCO application. We are currently considering possible alternative locations for replacement of on-street parking and are working with the LBHF on the need and, where appropriate, alternative position of spaces. Outcome N
5.5.72
LBHF
5.5.73 5.5.74
Use the river to transport more/all construction materials and spoil. Use the river rather than roads to transport construction materials and spoil, including consolidation centres at nearby barge/rail served sites. Opportunities exist to combine such a facility with the importation of materials for the adjacent residential development.
LR9236 GLA, LBHF
1 2
As detailed in our site information paper, where practical and N cost effective we will transport materials by barge. However, at this site transporting materials by barge is not considered N viable because we anticipate that by the time of our construction the adjacent St George Plc mixed-use development along the river frontage will have been constructed and occupied. However, nearer the time of construction we will consider whether there are any opportunities for further use of river transport as part of the scheme, and our contractor could also propose further use of the river to transport materials, or consolidation centres or possibly working with St George Plc to share a facility for the importation of materials.
Water and flood risk

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to water and flood risk 5.5.75 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to water and flood risk during construction.
5-21
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk Table 5.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during construction Ref 5.5.76 Objections, issues and concerns Clarification is needed on whether dewatering is required. Respondent ID EA No. 1 Our response Outcome
Our PEIR (volume 8, section 13) sets our preliminary N assessment of likely significant effects on groundwater. At this site dewatering would not be required as the shaft would be constructed mainly in London clay.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on water and flood risk 5.5.77 5.5.78 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on water and flood risk No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction.
5.6
5.6.1 5.6.2
Permanent design and appearance

This section sets out feedback comments received during the phase two consultation in relation to proposals for the permanent design and appearance of structures at Hammersmith Pumping Station that are required for the operation of the tunnel when it is in use (the operational phase). During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked to give their views on the identification of site specific issues that have influenced proposals for the permanent design of Hammersmith Pumping Station (please see question 5 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The first part of question 5 asked respondents to select whether they agree, disagree or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in the table below. Table 5.6.1 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 19 0 19 12 5 2 12 5 2 Yes No Dont know/unsure
5.6.3
As part of the phase two consultation, respondents were also asked to comment on proposals for the permanent design and appearance of Hammersmith Pumping Station (please see question 6 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The first part of question 6 asked respondents to select supportive, opposed or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in the table below.
5-22
Table 5.6.2 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 5.6.4 Number of respondents Total 0 0 0 19 0 19 10 5 4 10 5 4 Supportive Opposed Dont know/unsure
The following sections set out the comments received from respondents in connection to proposals for the permanent design and appearance of Hammersmith Pumping Station. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments provided feedback to the first part of questions 5 and 6. Feedback comments are organised under the following subheadings: supportive and neutral feedback comments objections, issues and concerns design suggestions.
5.6.5
Where respondents have 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 5.7. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Table 5.6.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Ref 5.6.6 5.6.7 5.6.8 Supportive and neutral comments The design/proposals are OK/fine/ acceptable. The design/proposals are good. Other supportive comments, you have to do what is necessary for the benefit of all concerned. Respondent ID 7905, 8831 7404 7404 No. 2 1 1 Your comment is noted. Our response Your comments are noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Table 5.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Ref 5.6.9 5.6.10 Objections, issues and concerns Proposals are unattractive/ugly. Proposals are unimaginative/bland. Respondent ID 8402, 8880 GLA No. 2 1 Our response We note your comments on the design of our proposed project. The design follows our project-wide principles and takes into account comments made at phase one consultation, on-going discussions with consultees and our design review with the Design Council CABE. Our Design development report (available as part of our phase two consultation) sets out the principles that have informed our design in more detail. We are continuing to develop our Outcome N N
5-23
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response detailed design proposals for this site in light of feedback to phase two consultation. We believe that the development is appropriately located relative to Hammersmith Pumping Station and the proposed Hammersmith Embankment/Fulham Reach development site. Our project design principles seek to minimise the likelihood of vandalism and anti-social behaviour and we have incorporated Secured by Design principles. We are developing our proposals for maintenance of the site and will discuss these with the LBHF.
Outcome
5.6.11
Further consideration should be given to site design and layout.
7036
5.6.12
Design will create opportunities for crime and anti-social behaviour. Concerned about the on-going maintenance of the site.
8880
5.6.13
8880
Design suggestions
Table 5.6.5 Design suggestions Ref 5.6.14 5.6.15 Design suggestions Design should incorporate appropriate screening. Design should provide suitable/more/ adequate landscaping and planting. Respondent ID 7801 7801 No. 1 1 Our response Outcome
The permanent works have been designed in conjunction N with the new mixed use development proposed at the Hammersmith Embankment/Fulham Reach site to ensure N that the designs are complementary. The arrangement of the permanent works means that they would either be located underground, within the existing pumping station site or within new public areas. Site landscaping will be delivered as part of the Hammersmith Embankment/Fulham Reach development. Our public consultations to date have provided the opportunity for the local community to comment on our proposals for this site. We believe that we have undertaken an appropriate level of consultation that has provided significant opportunity for the community to comment on our proposals. Our staged approach to consultation also means that we have been able to revise our designs in response to comments and concerns. We are working closely with the developers, St George Plc, to ensure that our proposed works and the redevelopment proposals for Hammersmith Embankment/Fulham Reach site complement one another. N
5.6.16
Final site design should be informed by local (LR)CABE, 7801 consultation/available for comment. Ideas should be sought from the local community and artists. There should also be close dialogue with the developers to ensure that the phased development successfully incorporates these works in the detailed design.
5.6.17 5.6.18
The final design should be distinctive and of architectural merit/iconic/visually attractive. Specific design amendments include: - minimise the external impact of the final building and landscaping - ensure that the location and design of the
7685 GLA, (LR)CABE, 7623, 8880, LR9491
1 5
At this site the permanent legacy of the projects aboveN ground structures is limited. The above ground structures that are required would be located within the existing N Thames Water compound and the new walls to the compound will match the existing walls to minimise impacts to nearby residents. Therefore there are no opportunities for N sloped roofs as a part of this scheme. It should be noted that
5-24
Ref
Design suggestions ventilation plant minimises any noise/odour impacts on nearby residents - consider a sloped roof and covering with grass to enhance the profile of the pumping station in this neighbourhood, celebrating its presence - the design and location of any facilities to support river transport should be designed in such a way that they have a purpose following construction such as river transport or river sports/recreation
Respondent ID
No.
Our response only internal work is required to the existing pumping station buildings as part of the project. The adjacent site has planning permission for redevelopment and when these proposals are implemented the developer will provide landscaping. Your comments regarding the profile of the pumping station are noted. At this site we do not propose to use barges to transport materials as the site is not by the River Thames. As such we do not require any facilities to support river transport.
Outcome N N
5.6.19
Designs should be environmentally friendly/ sustainable. Other design mitigation suggestion: some indication has been given as to the after use of construction sites, these aspects should be kept under review to reflect needs and opportunities as they appear on completion of works, which in some cases will be ten years from now.
7801, LR9491
We agree that our development should be environmentally friendly and we have incorporated a brown roof on the flat area of the ventilation structure to encourage biodiversity. The necessary works at this site will be coordinated with the phased mixed use development by St George Plc of the Hammersmith Embankment/Fulham Reach site.
5.6.20
GLA
5.7
5.7.1 5.7.2
Management of operational effects

This section sets out feedback comments received during the phase two consultation in relation to the management of operational effects at Hammersmith Pumping Station. This includes the identification of site specific issues associated with the site once it is operational and proposals to address the effects of these issues. During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with Hammersmith Pumping Station once the site is operational and the ways to address these issues (see questions 7a and 7b of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The first part of question 7a and 7b asked respondents to select agree, disagree or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in tables 5.7.1 and 5.7.2. Tables 5.7.3 to 5.7.17 detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments confirmed whether the right issues and the ways to address those issues had been identified. Table 5.7.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q7a) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 0 0 21 0 21 15 4 2 15 4 2 Yes No Dont know/unsure
5-25
Table 5.7.2 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 5.7.3 Number of respondents Total 0 0 0 20 0 20 13 4 3 13 4 3 Yes No Dont know/unsure
The following sections set out the comments received from respondents in connection to the identification of key issues associated with Hammersmith Pumping Station once the tunnel is operational. 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 5.7.4 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 Table 5.7.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues during operation Ref 5.7.5 Objections, issues and concerns Identification and description of potential effects and key issues is too vague/general/ not satisfactorily explained. Respondent ID 8402 No. 1 Our response Outcome
The key issues set out in the Hammersmith Pumping Station N site information paper are intended to provide a broad overview of potential effects and key issues associated with the site once it is operational. A more detailed description of possible likely significant effects and the methodology
5-26
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response through which they have been identified is provided in other technical reports, including the PEIR (volume 8), Design development report appendix B and Phase two scheme development report appendix B. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of the likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.
Outcome
General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues Table 5.7.4 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation Ref 5.7.6 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 Table 5.7.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation Ref 5.7.7 Objections, issues and concerns Measures to address potential issues are unsatisfactory/unconvincing. Respondent ID 8402 No. 1 Our response The measures set out in the site information paper are intended to provide a broad overview of how we intend to address potential issues associated with the site. Further information can be found in the PEIR (volume 8). 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 a part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. 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). 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, Hammersmith Pumping Station is the most suitable site. This is because it is a brownfield site with good access and the construction works could be coordinated with the proposed mixed use development at Hammersmith Embankment/Fulham Reach. The shaft is located further away from existing residential dwellings than at the other shortlisted sites. We also consider that some of the likely significant effects arising Outcome N
5.7.8
Measures to address potential effects are unsatisfactory/irrelevant as the wrong site has been identified/alternatives have not been properly considered.
8402
5-27
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response from the development at this site can be addressed through design development and/or mitigation measures. More information can be found in appendix B of the Design development report and the PEIR (volume 8).
Outcome
Air quality and odour

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour Table 5.7.6 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour during operation Ref 5.7.9 Supportive and neutral comments Proposals will ensure that odour is satisfactorily managed. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour Table 5.7.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation air quality and odour during operation Ref 5.7.10 Objections, issues and concerns Dust and dirt arising from operational activities. Effect of odour arising from operation of the tunnel. Respondent ID 8402 No. 1 Our response We do not anticipate that there will be any dust arising from the operation of the tunnel or from general inspection and maintenance activities at this site. Outcome N
5.7.11
(LR)CCW, 7372
Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of N odour associated with operation of the tunnel are set out in our PEIR (volume 8, section 4), which concludes that when the tunnel is operational no significant effects are predicted in relation to odour. The ventilation facilities would be designed 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 will not have any odours. This arrangement meets the Environment Agencys odour criteria. When the tunnel is empty the ventilation system would be operated so as to maintain a pressure lower than atmospheric pressure, which would prevent air from leaving the tunnel. This would be achieved by extracting air at specific active ventilation facilities which are currently proposed at our sites at Acton Storm Tanks, Carnwath Road Riverside, Greenwich Pumping Station and Abbey Mills Pumping Station where the air would be treated before being released through a high ventilation column. When the tunnel fills with sewage, the air path throughout the tunnel would gradually be lost and air would be displaced by the rising sewage levels. This air would pass through passive filters where it would be treated before being released. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of the likely significant effects on air quality and odour arising from the project. The findings of the assessment, together with any
5-28
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response Outcome recommendations for mitigation, will be available as a part of 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 of air quality and odour 5.7.12 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour issues during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour Table 5.7.8 Objections, issues, concerns and suggestions in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation Ref 5.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns Install equipment to monitor air quality and odour effects. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response Use of air quality monitoring of equipment is proposed during the operation of the tunnel as set out in the Air management plan. Outcome N
Historic environment
5.7.14 No feedback comments were received in relation to the historic environment issues during operation.
Land quality and contamination

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to land quality and contamination 5.7.15 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to land quality and contamination during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination Table 5.7.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation land quality and contamination during operation Ref 5.7.16 Objections, issues and concerns Potential for contamination and remediation has not been adequately addressed by phase two consultation. Respondent ID 8402 No. 1 Our response As set out in the PEIR (volume 8, section 8) baseline conditions at the site have been assessed through the analysis of available desk-based data, a site walkover and preliminary intrusive ground investigations. While the historic land use record suggests a potential for land contamination, no specific and likely significant effects have been identified to date. A preliminary assessment of the operational effects of the development identifies that the development is not likely to result in significant effects. Measures incorporated into the construction phase (investigation, soil and groundwater as necessary) as well as the placement of newly built hardstanding mean it is unlikely that there would be any significant effects in respect of contamination.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination 5.7.17 5.7.18 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination issues during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination issues during operation.
Lighting
5.7.19 No feedback comments were received in relation to lighting issues during operation.
5-29
Natural environment (aquatic)

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

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 5.7.10 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Ref 5.7.21 Supportive and neutral comments Support efforts to minimise the long-term impacts to biodiversity and secure improvements. Respondent ID LR9491 No. 1 Our response Your comments are noted and welcomed.
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) 5.7.22 5.7.23 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) issues during operation. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on natural environment (terrestrial) issues during operation Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 5.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Ref 5.7.24 5.7.25 5.7.26 Objections, issues and concerns Provide compensation habitat; put up nesting and roosting boxes. Locate permanent works within the site to avoid sensitive and designated areas. Maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity through an effective mitigation package. Respondent ID 7404 LR9491 LR9491 No. 1 1 1 Our response As stated in para 6.1.3 of our PEIR (volume 8, 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 effects of the development based on a methodology set out in our PEIR (volume 8, section 6). Outcome N N N
Noise and vibration

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to noise and vibration 5.7.27 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to noise and vibration issues during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration Table 5.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during operation Ref 5.7.28 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on noise and vibration; so far it has not been dealt with. Respondent ID 8402 No. 1 Our response We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. We carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. This included our PEIR (volume 8, section 9), which sets out our initial assessment of noise and vibration from operation of the site. Outcome N
5-30
Ref
Respondent ID
No.
Our response The PEIR assessment used Defra's London noise maps. Our Environmental statement, which will be submitted with our DCO application, will include a noise and vibration section that will be completed in line with the methodology that is compliant with BS4142 and has been agreed with the LBHF. We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient.
Outcome
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration 5.7.29 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration issues during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration Table 5.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during operation Ref 5.7.30 Objections, issues and concerns More detail is required on the amount of noise generation, how it will be restricted and monitored. Respondent ID 7623 No. 1 Our response Our PEIR (volume 8, section 9) sets out an assessment of the likely significant operational noise and vibration effects of the proposed scheme. No significant effects were identified, subject to appropriate noise control measures for equipment to ensure the targets in BS4142 are met. As such we do not expect any effect on occupiers or users of adjacent or nearby properties, businesses or facilities, or on any sensitive structures and therefore do not propose any noisemonitoring when the site is operational. Outcome N
Open space and recreation

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to open space and recreation 5.7.31 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to open space and recreation during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation Table 5.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during operation Ref 5.7.32 Objections, issues and concerns Effect on river navigation and recreational river users, hasn't adequately taken the measure of river and riverbank use in this specific area. Respondent ID 7036 No. 1 Our response Outcome
We do not believe that our permanent works would have any N effect on the river and riverbank as our proposed site is not adjacent to the river, with the adjacent Hammersmith Embankment/Fulham Reach development separating our proposed works from the river frontage However, it should be noted that the overall project will improve the quality of the tidal River Thames and this is considered a significant benefit of the project.
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation 5.7.33 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation issues during operation.
5-31
Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation Table 5.7.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation effects during operation Ref 5.7.34 Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. 1 Our response We do not believe that any mitigation is required in respect of the effects on the river and riverbank as our proposed site is not adjacent to the river with the adjacent Hammersmith Embankment/Fulham Reach development separating our proposed works from the river frontage. Outcome N
Mitigation proposed does not address the 7036 issues, hasn't adequately taken the measure of river and riverbank use in this specific area.
Planning and development

5.7.35 No feedback comments were received in relation to planning and development issues during operation.
Socio-economic
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects 5.7.36 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 5.7.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during operation Ref 5.7.37 Objections, issues and concerns Effect operational site on human health, both mental and physical. Respondent ID 8402 No. 1 Our response Outcome
Once the site works are complete we do not believe that the N permanent works at this site would have any likely significant health effects. As set out in our PEIR (volume 8, section 10), our scoping assessment (agreed with the LBHF) concluded that there would be no operational effects arising from the site. While not a formal requirement, we are also preparing a Health impact assessment for submission with the application which will assess the potential health and well-being effects of the project on identified vulnerable groups. 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 that would require more vehicles, including two cranes. Given the infrequency of these inspections and the low number of vehicles involved, we do not consider that there would be a detrimental effect on traffic or amenity. N
5.7.38
Effect of site maintenance and operation on the local community as this is a built-up area.
7372
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects 5.7.39 5.7.40 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 or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during operation.
5-32
Structures and utilities

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to structures and utilities 5.7.41 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to structures and utilities issues during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities Table 5.7.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during operation Ref 5.7.42 Objections, issues and concerns Long-term effects of structural damage to Riverview Gardens arising from tunnelling. Respondent ID 13469 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 will cause some small movements in the ground, the level of which will 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, will carry out protective measures. We will also monitor actual ground movement during and after the tunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted. We will also carry out a defects survey on buildings located over, or close to, our tunnels and worksites where we consider this necessary. The method used for assessing settlement is the same as that used for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, the Jubilee Line Extension, and Crossrail. In the unlikely event of damage occurring to property due to our construction works taking place nearby, disturbance compensation may be available as detailed in our Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme. Outcome C
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities 5.7.43 5.7.44 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during operation.
Townscape and visual

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

5.7.46 No feedback comments were received in relation to transport and access during operation.
5-33
Water and flood risk

5.7.47 No feedback comments were received in relation to water and flood risk during operation.
5.8
5.8.1 5.8.2
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. Hammersmith Pumping Station therefore remains our preferred site to intercept the Hammersmith Pumping Station CSO. 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 whether it is feasible to locate all above-ground structures proposed at phase two consultation within the Hammersmith Pumping Station building or compound, with the exception of minor structures. We will also continue to engage with the developers of Hammersmith Embankment/Fulham Reach site to ensure that our proposals can be accommodated with their proposals for this site. In our SOCC we recognised that we may need to amend our scheme following phase two consultation and that if changes came forward we would consider whether targeted consultation is appropriate. We do not consider that the degree of change in relation to this site or the effect on the local community would affect the nature of the comments received during phase two consultation in such a way as to require further consultation. On that basis, a round of targeted consultation on our proposals for this site is not considered necessary. We will progress with preparation of our application for a Development Consent Order and will incorporate the changes referred to in paragraphs 5.8.3 and 5.8.4 if further work demonstrates that this is appropriate. We intend to publicise our proposed application in accordance with Section 48 of the Planning Act 2008 later in 2012. Full details of our proposed scheme will be set out in our DCO application and the accompanying documents.
5.8.3
5.8.4 5.8.5
5-34

Supp Report On P2 Consultation - Chapter 5 Hammer Smith Pumping Station

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supp Report On P2 Consultation - Chapter 5 Hammer Smith Pumping Station

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

5 Hammersmith Pumping Station

Thames Tunnel Supplementary report on phase two consultation

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

5 Hammersmith Pumping Station

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

5 Hammersmith Pumping Station

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

5 Hammersmith Pumping Station

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

5 Hammersmith Pumping Station

Hammersmith Pumping Station

Structure of this chapter

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

5 Hammersmith Pumping Station

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

5 Hammersmith Pumping Station

GLA, 7623, 8098 8666, 8790

5.3.9 5.3.10 5.3.11

8028 8028 8790

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

5 Hammersmith Pumping Station

Supportive and neutral comments

- subject to appropriate assessment and

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

5 Hammersmith Pumping Station

Objections, issues and concerns

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

5 Hammersmith Pumping Station

Supportive and neutral comments

5.4.3 5.4.4 5.4.5 5.4.6

7372 7036 7372

Management of construction works

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

5 Hammersmith Pumping Station

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

5 Hammersmith Pumping Station

General feedback comments on the identified key issues

General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

5 Hammersmith Pumping Station

Objections, issues and concerns minimised at every stage of construction.

Air quality and odour

Construction working hours and programme

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

5 Hammersmith Pumping Station

Construction site design and layout

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

5 Hammersmith Pumping Station

Land quality and contamination

Natural environment (aquatic)

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

5 Hammersmith Pumping Station

Natural environment (terrestrial)

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

5 Hammersmith Pumping Station

Objections, issues and concerns

Noise and vibration

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

5 Hammersmith Pumping Station

Open space and recreation

Supplementary report on phase two consultation