You are on page 1of 117

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies

DRAFT APP67

This page is intentionally blank

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

This document is issued in draft on 13 January 2014 to allow feedback from the Examining Authority and Interested Parties/Affected Persons. A final draft will be issued on 12 February 2014.

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

This page is intentionally blank

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

Thames Tideway Tunnel Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies DRAFT
List of contents
Page number

1 2 3

Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Securing commitments ................................................................................... 2 Maximising mitigation ..................................................................................... 4 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Proposed additional on-site mitigation ..................................................... 4 Commitments through s106 obligations ................................................ 24 Low vibration piling ................................................................................ 27 The updates to the Environmental Assessment .................................... 29 Off-site mitigation and trigger action plans ............................................ 29 Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking ....................................................... 33 Independent Advisory Service (IAS) ...................................................... 34 Independent Compensation Panel ........................................................ 34 Help guide and pamphlets ..................................................................... 35

4

Proactive policies ........................................................................................... 32 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

5 6

Further engagement ...................................................................................... 36 Conclusion...................................................................................................... 37

Appendix A : Schedule of second round questions ........................................... 39 Appendix B : Revised environmental assessments ........................................... 41 Appendix C : Schedule of trigger action plans ................................................... 43 Appendix D : Trigger action plan and off-site mitigation indicative timeline ... 45 Appendix E : Schedule of Stakeholder and community meetings .................... 47 Appendix F : London local authority workshop meeting minutes .................... 49 Appendix G : Revised environmental assessments ........................................... 51

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

i

List of tables
Page number

Table 3.1: Proposed additional on-site noise and vibration mitigation and other measures secured through the Code of Construction Practice .................. 5 Table 3.2: Examples of s106 obligations with relevant London local authorities ...... 25

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

ii

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

1
1.1.1

Introduction
This paper summarises the work being undertaken to develop additional construction mitigation measures and to revise the compensation policies developed in response to matters raised by the Examining Authority (ExA) and also by other interested parties. This paper also supplements a number of second-round questions summarised in Appendix A. With the benefit of further examination through the forthcoming issue specific hearings, it is intended to refine this work and submit a full and final draft of the revised material and supporting documentation on 12 February 2014. This will incorporate any revisions in response to comments made by the ExA and also by other interested parties. The ExA and other interested parties have raised concerns, during the hearings held so far and in representations, about several matters relating to mitigation and compensation. Specifically: a. Securing commitments: Mitigation measures and compensation policies must be clearly secured in the application for development consent and there must be clarity about the way in which those measures are to be transferred and binding upon the Infrastructure Provider (IP) and its contractors. b. Maximising mitigation: Mitigation must be maximised at source to minimise disruption on the surrounding community. We have updated our assessments of environmental effects to reflect the proposed additional mitigation measures. c. Proactive policies: Compensation policies must be clear to the public and proactive on the part of Thames Water and the IP.

1.1.2

1.1.3

d. Engagement: We should more proactively engage residents and communities to understand their concerns and the combined effect of the work. 1.1.4 We have already undertaken a large amount of public consultation over the last three years and we are responding to this in addition to feedback received through the examination process. It was always the intention to undertake much of this mitigation, but at a later stage in the process and following appointment of contractors circa May 2015. However, we understand the need to address the concerns raised and bring this work forward by making additional commitments now. The commitments set out in this report at this stage take this project further in terms of mitigation and compensation than any other similar project has done in London. As an infrastructure developer, we need to balance the provision of mitigation measures with our requirement to deliver infrastructure safely and efficiently which is overseen by the water industry economic regulator (Ofwat).

1.1.5

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

1

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

2
2.1.1

Securing commitments
On-site mitigation measures for the Thames Tideway Tunnel project are secured through a number of site-specific requirements and, particularly, through the Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) parts A and B. Implementation and compliance with the CoCP is a requirement within the application for development consent. We have revised the commitments to ensure that they are specific, clear, measureable and enforceable. The CoCP Part B now more clearly defines the minimum mitigation that shall be provided for each site, unless the relevant local authority approves a suitable alternative providing the same or better level of protection. The CoCP Part A defines minimum project-wide mitigation requirements as well as the management regimes, secondary consent requirements and monitoring regimes that will ensure compliance with the application for development consent. We have continued to proactively engage with other interested parties on revisions to the CoCP since 9 December 2013. Additional mitigation on site has been developed and incorporated into the CoCP, as described in the next section. Where further mitigation on site is not possible, we have committed through our policies to offer to provide off-site mitigation and compensation (eg, noise insulation). These policies are being secured through Legal Agreements (ExA Doc ref: APP74.2) and appropriate project-wide requirements, including a Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking (ExA doc ref: APP74.3) with the relevant London local authorities. This is described in more detail in Section 4. In order to secure a limit on potential noise and vibration effects of the scheme, we have made a ‘Not Environmentally Worse Than’ (NEWT) commitment across all sites. This will legally bind contractors to provide mitigation measures which would prevent noise and vibration effects during construction and operation from exceeding those described in the Environmental Statement (ES) (as amended during the examination process). The commitment extends to a requirement for the IP and its contractors to develop and implement any additional mitigation that is reasonable and practicable to reduce the effects further. The NEWT commitment is being secured through the updated CoCP Part A. The ‘NEWT’ commitment is common to very large-scale projects where, to ensure the best practicable protection of communities and other sensitive receptors around the many construction sites, it is necessary to have a two-stage process: the first where seeking approval for powers to construct and operate the scheme; and the second where contractors have completed their detailed proposals and agree with relevant local authorities through Section 61 consent. This is akin to outline planning and detailed planning. The ‘NEWT’ type commitment can be found, for example, in the Acts for Crossrail and Forth Crossing, in the ES for Phase

2.1.2

2.1.3

2.1.4 2.1.5 2.1.6

2.1.7

2.1.8

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

2

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT 1 of HS2, and in the Environmental Minimum Requirements for HS1 (formerly CTRL). 2.1.9 For noise and vibration considerations, the ‘NEWT’ commitment effectively sets the ES, as modified during the examination, as a benchmark for the effects arising from the scheme, and requires that the effects at detailed design and during delivery of the project do not exceed the limits contained in the ES. For noise, the key principles of the commitment are: a. to ensure that individuals or communities cannot become significantly affected unless they are identified as being likely to be significantly affected in the ES (as modified); and b. to further reduce effects and hence avoid significant effects reported in the ES wherever practicable. 2.1.10 Where it is not practicable during detailed design or during the works to avoid significant effects identified in the ES, then off-site mitigation and compensation measures will be developed and offered to the property owner. Ensuring that significant noise and vibration effects do not arise where they are not identified in the ES will principally be achieved by confirming the noise levels forecast by the contractor in support of the Section 61 consent applications do not exceed the relevant criterion as defined in ES methodology. The monitoring and compliance regimes set out in the CoCP and Section 61 consents will provide an assurance that NEWT compliance is being achieved during construction. This would be enforced first by the IP. Ultimately, if there were a breach of conditions imposed on a Section 61 consent and this was not corrected by the contractor or the IP, the relevant local authority could serve abatement notices under the Control of Pollution Act and/or the Environmental Protection and/or take enforcement action under the development consent order. We will also require, through a commitment in the s106 Unilateral Undertaking, that off-site mitigation measures be put in place prior to the commencement of the construction activity that leads to the need for the particular mitigation, assuming all agreements are in place. The equivalent commitment for on-site mitigation is included in the updated CoCP Part A. Substantial drafts of the above documents are being submitted to the ExA on 13 January 2014, with final versions, incorporating any revisions in response to comments and feedback, to follow on 12 February 2014. The documents demonstrate that the proposed measures and policies have continued to evolve during discussions with the respective stakeholders and reflect the ExA’s guidance.

2.1.11

2.1.12

2.1.13

2.1.14

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

3

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

3
3.1.1

Maximising mitigation
The ES sets out a robust, worst-case assessment of likely environmental effects resulting from the works. We have reduced the likely effects through updates to the CoCP parts A and B and the potential exists to further reduce effects via detailed secondary consents, particularly the Section 61 process for noise and vibration that would be undertaken by the contractors on a site-by-site basis with the relevant local authority prior to construction. In response to matters raised in the examination so far, however, we have undertaken a review of all principal sites where potential significant effects are reported in the ES and our teams have accelerated some of the detailed mitigation measures that can now be confirmed, based on further scheme development and information available since the application for development consent, and which may otherwise have been identified through the Section 61 process. These additional measures are being committed to now through additions to the CoCP and additional requirements. Broadly speaking, the additional measures identified include mitigation of construction effects around matters relating to noise, vibration and dust, the logistics surrounding barge movements and the removal/transportation of material. We undertook a review of the proposed working arrangements and the requirement for effective mitigation measures on site, balanced with cost-effective, timely and safe project delivery required by both Government and confirmed in various ministerial statements and also by the water industry regulator. It is anticipated that further mitigation will be possible through the next stages of the project.

3.1.2

3.1.3

3.1.4

3.1.5

3.2
3.2.1

Proposed additional on-site mitigation
Based on the review, we have committed to a number of mitigation measures, in addition to those included in the application for development consent in February 2013, to further reduce noise and vibration effects. Details of the additional mitigation measures are included in the CoCP and summarised in Table 3.1 below. The table also includes other additional commitments made in the CoCP that, while not necessarily reducing noise and vibration effects, provide additional measures and demonstrate a genuine commitment to continue to work with the communities and relevant local authorities to offset the impact of construction.

3.2.2

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

4

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT Table 3.1: Proposed additional on-site noise and vibration mitigation and other measures secured through the Code of Construction Practice
Residual significant noise and vibration effects predicted in the application for development consent Proposed additional on-site mitigation measures and other commitments secured through the CoCP No significant residual effects at this site Additional on-site mitigation measures proposed: No reported significant effects remain that need mitigating Other additional commitments in CoCP: The Traffic Management Plan will comply with the London Borough of Ealing’s requirements for signage, tactile paving and road markings.

Site

Outcome

Acton Storm Tanks

No reported significant effects remain that need mitigating.

Hammersmith Significant residual day, evening and night-time effects at proposed Fulham Pumping Reach development Station Additional mitigation measures proposed: No additional practicable on-site mitigation measures identified. Other additional commitments in CoCP: The project-wide travel plan shall include that the contractor shall put measures in place to eliminate potential issues of parking impacts from shift workers for street parking suspensions on Distillery Lane and Chancellor’s Road. Baseline monitoring for PM10 and NO2 to be undertaken for a minimum of 12 months, prior to the work commencing Barn Elms Significant residual day and night-time noise effects at Lancaster House Additional mitigation measures proposed: Avoid the use of concrete breakers at night (22:00-08:00) except in emergency. Other additional commitments in CoCP: Construction areas within the Barn Elms Schools Sports Centre are to be minimised and reduced, as appropriate, between the construction phases. The contractor shall provide vehicular access to Ashlone Wharf tidal barrier for

No changes to the residual significant effects. We are in discussions with Fulham Reach Development and will develop off-site mitigation and compensation measures through trigger action plans.

Removes significant night-time noise effect at Lancaster House. Noise effect at Lancaster House remains above the threshold limit for 7 months during site setup/demolition, piling and secondary shaft lining. We will proceed in developing potential off-site mitigation and compensation

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

5

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Residual significant noise and vibration effects predicted in the application for development consent Proposed additional on-site mitigation measures and other commitments secured through the CoCP the EA and its contractors along the access route to be constructed on the northern and eastern perimeter of Barn Elms Playing Field for the duration of the works. The entrance to the access route shall be kept secure at all times, while ensuring that the EA can access the asset whenever this is required (unrestricted 24 hours a day, to ensure that the EA can fulfil its flood defence obligations). Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority, no heavy goods vehicles shall enter or leave the construction site during the hours of 08:00 to 09:00 and 17:00 to 18:00, Monday to Friday, excluding bank holidays, and 08:00 to 13:00 Saturday to avoid local congestion. The contractor shall provide safe segregation between the sport facilities and haul road throughout construction in consultation with the local authority and the Barn Elms Schools Sports Centre Management. This may include considering the suitable design of construction access fencing and/or site hoarding to withstand potential impact from sports pitch users. Pedestrian access between Queen Elizabeth Walk and the Barn Elms Schools Sports Centre shall be maintained. The position of the existing pedestrian access gate in the northern perimeter fence shall be relocated to reflect the final layout of the construction access. The position of the relocated pedestrian access gate shall remain in close proximity to the changing room facilities, and access to the facilities shall be maintained throughout the works. Significant residual daytime noise effects at 10 Ruvigny Gardens, Star and Garter mansion and public house and the Putney Pier Houseboats. Additional mitigation measures proposed: Low noise and vibration piling methods will be used unless determined to be impossible. The first 'anchor' piles will need to be installed using a vibratory driver. These anchor piles are being installed at a location away from the closest

Site

Outcome measures through trigger action plans for Lancaster House.

Putney Embankment Foreshore

Removes daytime significant noise effect at the Star and Garter Mansion and Public House. Reduces daytime significant noise effect at Putney Pier. Noise effect exceeding the ABC impact criterion threshold

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

6

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Residual significant noise and vibration effects predicted in the application for development consent Proposed additional on-site mitigation measures and other commitments secured through the CoCP sensitive receptors, including Putney Pier Houseboats. Other additional commitments in CoCP: No Sunday working, to include maintenance of plant and/or equipment, shall be conducted either upon Putney Bridge, within the vaults beneath the bridge or on land located to the east of the bridge adjacent to St Mary’s Church, before 11:30. Deliveries of plant, equipment, welfare facilities and ready-mix concrete for the temporary slipway only are being via Glendarvon Street, and other deliveries are being by river to the temporary slipway site only, where practicable, unless tidal restrictions prevent the timely implementation of the construction and/or demolition of that slipway. The on-site lighting is being designed in liaison with local businesses adjacent to the worksite to limit adverse impacts. Lighting is being directed away from sensitive receptors and light spill is being minimised, for example, through the use of directional, capped and cowled lighting. The contractor shall produce and implement a plan in consultation with St Mary’s Church and Busy Bee by the Bridge Nursery School. The plan shall include measures to ensure no conflict occurs between the movement of staff, materials and associated tools/machinery relating to works in the vaults on the eastern side of Putney Bridge, and those accessing the Church and Busy Bee by the Bridge Nursery School. The contractor shall identify any requirements to temporarily remove the statue ‘load’ which is located at the junction of Lower Richmond Road and the Embankment carriageways. Measures to protect the statue, whether it is required to be temporarily removed of kept in situ for the duration of the works, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local authority. If removed, the statue is being securely stored for the duration of the works.

Site

Outcome reduced from 15 months to 6 months. Noise effect at 10 Ruvigny Gardens remains above the threshold limit for 2 months due to construction of the temporary slipway. We will proceed in developing potential off-site mitigation and compensation measures through trigger action plans for Star and Garter Mansion and Public House, 10 Ruvigny Gardens and Putney Houseboats. We will also proceed in developing a trigger action plan for Putney Pier Houseboats as a special case.

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

7

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Residual significant noise and vibration effects predicted in the application for development consent Proposed additional on-site mitigation measures and other commitments secured through the CoCP No significant residual effects at this site Additional mitigation measures proposed: No reported significant effects remain that need mitigating Other additional commitments in CoCP: The site-specific heritage management plan for this site shall include all heritage assets along the alignment of the tunnel driven from this site where not directly affected by other sites. No significant residual effects at this site Additional mitigation measures proposed: No reported significant effects remain that need mitigating. Significant residual day, evening and night-time noise effects at 89-101 Carnwath Road and significant residual night-time noise effects at 5 Carnwath Road arising from river traffic. Additional mitigation measures proposed: 3.6m high acrylic sheet shall be installed on the river walls subject to planning permission being granted. The material handling area shall be screened by a three-sided enclosure and roof clad with suitable noise attenuation material with a minimum sound reduction of 20dB. Other additional commitments in CoCP: Lighting on any jetties shall be switched off or reduced when not in use for barge loading or unloading. This excludes requirements for lighting for navigational safety. Three sections of parking to be suspended comprising a potential 12 parking spaces on Carnwath Road. Single yellow line parking restrictions shall be added where these sections of parking are suspended with these restrictions operating

Site

Outcome

Dormay Street

No reported significant effects remain that need mitigating.

King George’s Park Carnwath Road Riverside

No reported significant effects remain that need mitigating.

Reduces daytime significant noise effects at 89-101 Carnwath Road. Reduces night-time significant noise effect at 5 Carnwath Road. The screens will not however provide screening to properties at second floor and above, therefore, effects at these properties would remain significant. We will proceed in developing potential off-site mitigation and compensation measures through trigger action plans for 89-101 Carnwath Road and 5 Carnwath Road.

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

8

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Residual significant noise and vibration effects predicted in the application for development consent Proposed additional on-site mitigation measures and other commitments secured through the CoCP from 07:00 to 19:00, Monday to Friday. Baseline monitoring of PM10 and NO2 to be undertaken for a minimum of 12 months, prior to the works commencing. The site-specific heritage management plan for this site shall include all heritage assets along the alignment of the tunnel driven from this site where not directly affected by other sites. The contractor shall monitor Grade II listed Putney Bridge for at least 12 months in advance of the arrival of the tunnel boring machine at the bridge. This baseline monitoring shall enable the continual expansion and contraction of the bridge to be recorded. The contractor shall use this baseline data to inform the conclusions of the assessment report. No significant residual effects at this site Additional measures proposed: No reported significant effects remain that need mitigating. However, where practicable, alternative methods of non-percussive demolition techniques for the removal and modification of sections of the former pumping station substructure would be considered. The proposed methods shall be discussed in advance with LB Wandsworth prior to implementation, in accordance with S61 procedures. Significant residual daytime noise effects at Station House; day and evening-time effects at the proposed Lots Road Power Station mid-rise block and night-time effects at the proposed Lots Road Power Station high-rise tower. Additional measures proposed: No additional practicable on-site mitigation measures identified Other additional commitments in CoCP: The contractor will liaise with local businesses (eg, Circadian) with respect to relevant construction works at this site.

Site

Outcome

Falconbrook Pumping Station

No reported significant effects remain that need mitigating. We will, however, proceed in developing a trigger action plan for Adventure Playground and the Library.

Cremorne Wharf Depot

No change to the significant noise effects. We will proceed in developing potential off-site mitigation and compensation measures through trigger action plans for Lots Road Power Station mid-rise block and at the proposed Lots Road Power Station high-rise tower.

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

9

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Residual significant noise and vibration effects predicted in the application for development consent Proposed additional on-site mitigation measures and other commitments secured through the CoCP Standard hours on this site are in accordance with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s normal working hours of 08:00 to 18:30 Monday to Friday, and 08:00 to 13:00 Saturday. Mobilisation is only permitted from 19:30 to 08:00 for staff arrival and briefings, unless otherwise agreed with the council. Unless agreed with the Local Authority, heavy goods vehicles accessing and egressing the site are being between 09:30 and 15:00 to avoid school traffic outside these hours. There shall be a suspension of a maximum of five parking bays on Lots Road. The contractor will liaise with the local highway authority to reduce where practicable. Real-time monitoring of noise is required at locations agreed with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea including Chelsea Academy. The crevice in the southeast corner of the depot building identified as supporting a transitory bat roost shall be removed or filled prior to demolition. This would be done between October and February during which the transitory bat roost shall not be in use. A minimum of three bat boxes shall be installed on trees in Cremorne Gardens no later than one year in advance of the start of the demolition of the depot building and in advance of the removal or filling in of the crevice in the depot building identified as supporting a transitory roost. No significant residual effects at this site Additional measures proposed: No reported significant effects remain that need mitigating. Other additional commitments in CoCP: Standard hours on this site are in accordance with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s normal working hours of 08:00 to 18:30 Monday to Friday, and 08:00 to 13:00 Saturday. Mobilisation is only permitted from 07:30 to 08:00 for staff arrival and briefings, unless otherwise agreed with the council.

Site

Outcome

Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

No reported significant effects remain that need mitigating.

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

10

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Residual significant noise and vibration effects predicted in the application for development consent Proposed additional on-site mitigation measures and other commitments secured through the CoCP Access through the Bull Ring entrance for set-up and take-down of the Chelsea Flower Show and Masterpiece events shall be maintained. The public access during the events shall also be maintained. Emergency access from Chelsea Embankment (A3212) shall be maintained during the events. In the traffic management plan, the contractor shall consider alternate construction routes for vehicles in excess of 4.4m in height to avoid the height restriction on the A3212 Grosvenor Road. This shall be reviewed with Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and TfL during preparation of the plan. Management arrangements during events in the adjacent area to be confirmed in consultation with the local highway authority, the Royal Horticultural Society, the Royal Hospital Chelsea and Transport for London. Access through the Bull Ring gates shall be maintained for development work on Gordon House. Significant residual day, evening and night-time noise effects at the Nine Elms Pier houseboats; day and night-time effects at the proposed Riverlight development; and night-time effects at the proposed Battersea Power Station development Additional measures proposed: Plant will be electrically powered where practicable; contractor may use alternative means as long as it meets or exceeds our revised assessment. Install timber fenders along the river side of the jetty to reduce noise effects from barging operations1 Timber fenders will be installed on the river side of the jetty to reduce noise caused by contact between the jetty and barges1 An acoustical barrier will be installed on the land side of the jetty to reduce the noise effects from barging operations1

Site

Outcome

Kirtling Street

Reduces significant daytime noise effects at Nine Elms Pier Houseboats but effects remain significant. Noise effects at Riverlight development and Battersea Power Station development also remain significant. The addition of timber fenders to the pier and installation of an acoustic wall on the landside of the pier will screen the houseboats at Nine Elms Pier from the noise generated by barges being loaded. This does not remove the evening or night effects however the excess is greatly reduced. This also reduces the

1

This mitigation measure is not included in the draft CoCP Part B submission to ExA on 13 January 2014 but it will be included in the submission on 12 February 2014

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

11

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Residual significant noise and vibration effects predicted in the application for development consent Proposed additional on-site mitigation measures and other commitments secured through the CoCP All cladding and roofs of noise enclosures will incorporate a suitable noise attenuation material with a minimum sound reduction of 20dB. Other additional commitments in CoCP: Where practicable, site offices and welfare facilities shall be located along the eastern boundary of the construction site, in order to assist screening from the Riverlight development. The hoarding on the Riverlight boundary is to be a planted hoarding ‘green wall’. The planting is to be maintained by St James (this will be secured by an Agreement with St James). Lighting on jetties shall be switched off or reduced when not in use for barge loading or unloading. This excludes requirements for lighting for navigational safety. Access to the site shall be via Kirtling Street at its junction with Battersea Park Road. Exit from the site shall be via Kirtling Street, left onto Cringle Street and then left onto Nine Elms Lane. The exit from the site onto Kirtling Street is by the Riverlight development including the car park entrance/exit and nursery. The contractor shall put in place measures to mitigate the risk of conflict with other road users at this junction, and pedestrians and cyclists using the Thames Path diversion, including: a. establishing a ‘Give Way’ system which will give priority to traffic on Kirtling Street b. erecting warning signage on the approach to, and the exit gate, reminding drivers to take extra care upon leaving the site c. deploying a permanent presence of a qualified traffic marshal during operational times d. provide thorough briefings to their transport suppliers to give their drivers on the site access and egress rules. The contractor shall explore the possibility of erecting convex mirrors at the

Site

Outcome contribution from this source to other receptors, however, as they are much further away and other noise sources on site dominate, there is no further change to the assessment as a result of this. The use of electric cranes wherever possible reduces the impact of noise during the whole programme, however, reductions to the overall noise levels are mostly evident during the shaft excavation. As this is not the activity causing the highest noise levels at receptors there is no change to the significance effects, however, the overall noise impact is reduced during the shaft excavation. We will proceed in developing potential off-site mitigation and compensation measures through trigger action plans for Nine Elms Pier houseboats, Riverlight Development blocks A, B and C and Battersea Power Station Development blocks PS and RS4.

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

12

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Residual significant noise and vibration effects predicted in the application for development consent Proposed additional on-site mitigation measures and other commitments secured through the CoCP junction to aid driver visibility. The contractor shall be aware of the proposed narrowing of a section of Kirtling Street as part of the Riverlight plans, and make appropriate arrangements to mitigate the risk arising from the use of construction vehicles at this point. The site-specific heritage management plan for this site shall include all heritage assets along the alignment of the tunnel driven from this site where not directly affected by other sites. As far as is practicable, mitigation for settlement effects on the Grade I listed Tower Bridge will avoid the need for intrusive works on the bridge. Significant residual daytime noise effects at the proposed Riverlight development Block F. Additional measures proposed: Low noise and vibration piling methods are being used unless determined to be impossible. The first 'anchor' piles will need to be installed using a vibratory driver. These anchor piles are being installed at a location away from the closest sensitive receptors including Riverlight Block F. Other additional commitments in CoCP: Both receiving areas for vehicles within the site are constrained. The contractor shall take account of the restrictions and take measures to address the requirement not to reverse onto Nine Elms Lane, which may include: a. restricting the size of allowable vehicles to 7.5t gross vehicle weight at the western access b. installing a turntable facility c. restricting the size of allowable vehicles to 18t gross vehicle weight at the eastern access d. installing a ‘hammerhead’ turning area e. collapsible hoarding at the western site turning area to accommodate the

Site

Outcome

Heathwall Pumping Station

Removes daytime significant noise effects at Riverlight Development Block F. No other significant effects remain that need mitigating. We will proceed in developing a trigger action plan for Riverlight Block F.

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

13

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Residual significant noise and vibration effects predicted in the application for development consent Proposed additional on-site mitigation measures and other commitments secured through the CoCP vehicle overhang f. provision of qualified traffic marshals at both accesses and both turning points. Significant residual daytime noise effects at Camelford House, Tintagel House and Vauxhall Cross. Significant residual daytime vibration effects at 1-146 Bridge House, Camelford House, Tintagel House and Vauxhall Cross. Additional measures proposed: Low noise and vibration piling methods are being used unless determined to be impossible. The first 'anchor' piles will need to be installed using a vibratory driver. These anchor piles are being installed at a location away from the closest sensitive property including Tintagel, Camelford House and Vauxhall Cross. Other additional commitments in CoCP: The contractor shall select suitable operating procedures that will not damage impact on the known Mesolithic timbers in the foreshore at the site, within the zone of sensitivity (shown in Figure 13 1, Known Mesolithic timbers in the foreshore of the CoCP Part B). Significant residual daytime noise effects at the Hispaniola and Tattershall Castle vessels Additional measures proposed: Low noise and vibration piling methods are being used unless determined to be impossible. The first 'anchor' piles will need to be installed using a vibratory driver. These anchor piles are being installed at a location away from the closest sensitive property including the Tattershall Castle and Hispaniola vessels. Other additional commitments in CoCP: The local authority shall approve the external appearance of the hoarding. This approval shall not delay the erection of the hoarding, if construction work needs to commence in order to meet the programme. If this occurs, changes to the

Site

Outcome

Albert Embankment Foreshore

Removes significant vibration effects at 1-146 Bridge House, Camelford House, Tintagel House and Vauxhall Cross. Removes reported day-time significant noise effects at Tintagel House and Vauxhall Cross. Noise levels will remain significant at Camelford House due to shaft construction. We will proceed in developing potential off-site mitigation and compensation measures through trigger action plans for Camelford House. Reduces noise effects at the Hispaniola and Tattershall Castle but remain significant during demolition and cofferdam construction. We will develop trigger action plans for the Hispaniola and Tattershall Castle.

Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

14

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Residual significant noise and vibration effects predicted in the application for development consent Proposed additional on-site mitigation measures and other commitments secured through the CoCP appearance are being agreed with the local authority and implemented as soon as practicable thereafter. Prior to suspending any coach parking spaces alternative parking spaces are being provided. The coach parking is being reinstated on completion of the works unless agreed with the highway authority. Contractor shall liaise with City of London Corporation, Westminster City Council and TfL event planning teams with regard to other major events which may affect Victoria Embankment. No significant residual effects at this site No reported significant effects remain that need mitigating. Additional measures proposed: Low noise and vibration piling methods are being used unless determined to be impossible for the eastern end of the Millennium Pier dredged pocket (close to the school premises). The contractor shall liaise with the school to agree periods when piling can proceed without causing adverse noise impacts close to the City of London Boys School if possible. Other additional commitments in CoCP: The contractor shall liaise with the City of London Boys School with respect to the works to construct the relocated Blackfriars Millennium Pier. Prior to suspending any coach parking spaces alternative parking spaces are being provided. The coach parking is being reinstated on completion of the works unless agreed with the highway authority. The contractor shall liaise with City of London Corporation, Westminster City Council and TfL event planning teams with regard to other major events which may affect Victoria Embankment. The contractor shall attend highways liaison meetings as required by the City of London Corporation. The City of London Corporation shall provide the contractor

Site

Outcome

Blackfriars Bridge Foreshore

No reported significant effects remain that need mitigating. We will, however, proceed in developing a trigger action plans for City of London Boys School and the HMS President as special cases.

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

15

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Residual significant noise and vibration effects predicted in the application for development consent Proposed additional on-site mitigation measures and other commitments secured through the CoCP with 14 days’ notice of such meeting. The City of London Corporation requires the submission of the contractor’s site-specific Construction and Demolition Statement for agreement with the City of London Corporation, for works at Blackfriars Bridge Foreshore, including the works to relocate the President and the Millennium Pier. Significant residual day, evening and night-time noise effects at Luna House and 8-14 Fountain Green Square and day and night-time effects at Axis Court Additional measures proposed: There are being no movement, loading or unloading of river vessels at night (22:00 to 08:00) subject to derogations. Transport of concrete segments by river subject to derogations. 3.6m high acrylic sheet shall be installed on the river walls subject to planning permission being granted. Low vibration piling methods are being used unless determined to be impossible. The first 'anchor' piles will need to be installed using a vibratory driver. These anchor piles are being installed at a location away from the closest residential receptors including Luna House and 8-14 Fountain Green Square. Compaction of material on site shall be undertaken using machinery generating the lowest practicable vibration levels which still enables the required level of compaction to be completed. Specifically, large twin-drum vibrating rollers shall only be used where vibration levels can be controlled to less than the impact criteria set in the Environmental Statement. All cladding and roofs of noise enclosures shall incorporate a suitable noise attenuation material with a minimum sound reduction of 20dB. The vessel loading area shall be located to consider the noise impacts on riverside properties on both the east and west of the site. 2.4m high noise barrier shall be erected on the edge of cofferdam on the east and west sides of the vessel loading area; the noise barrier on cofferdam is to be

Site

Outcome

Chambers Wharf

Removes evening and night-time significant noise effects at Luna House. Removes night-time noise significant effects at Axis Court. Removes day, evening and night-time noise effects at Nos.8-14 Fountain Green Square. Daytime significant effects remain at Luna House and Axis Court. It is predicted the noise levels will exceed the impact threshold level for approximately 4 months with the worst case predicted noise level to occur for approximately 1 month as a result of demolition works. We will proceed in developing potential off-site mitigation and compensation measures through trigger action plans for Luna House and Axis Court. We will also proceed in developing a trigger action plan for Riverside Primary School as a special case.

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

16

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Residual significant noise and vibration effects predicted in the application for development consent Proposed additional on-site mitigation measures and other commitments secured through the CoCP constructed with transparent acrylic sheet with a minimum thickness of 6mm and to meet noise attenuation requirements. Other additional commitments in CoCP: No scheduled lorry movements to and from the site between the hours of 08:45 and 09:30 and between 15:00 and 15:45, to avoid the lorry movements at arrival and departure times of Riverside Primary School. The contractor shall provide traffic marshals to prevent site lorries entering Bevington Street at these times. The project shall convene a Community Liaison Working Group in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Section 106 agreement with the London Borough of Southwark. The site layout will consider the use of required offices and storage containers or structures as noise barriers, while also considering their effect on day and sunlight. Specifically on the southwest corner by Chambers Street or west boundary of the site, 3-storey offices or equivalent are being considered for use as a noise barrier. This area of the site is closest to St Michaels School and Axis Court. The site layout, hoarding and noise barriers on the west of the site shall be designed where practical to minimise potential adverse sunlight/daylight impacts on the lower floors of Axis Court. The hoarding is to incorporate planted hoarding and suitable artwork on public facing sections. The local authority shall approve the external appearance of the hoarding. This approval shall not delay the erection of the hoarding, if construction work needs to commence in order to meet the programme. If this occurs, changes to the appearance are being agreed with the local authority and implemented as soon as practicable thereafter. The lighting management plan shall address the impact on terrestrial and aquatic ecology and include the use of low level directional lighting where possible while

Site

Outcome

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

17

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Residual significant noise and vibration effects predicted in the application for development consent Proposed additional on-site mitigation measures and other commitments secured through the CoCP meeting safe work requirements. The lighting plan is to be submitted to the London Borough of Southwark for approval with respect to potential external impacts. The contractor shall consider alternative pedestrian and cycle diversion routes, which reduce the number of conflict points, within the Chamber Wharf contingency plan should an operational derogation be required for all materials to be transport by road in the peak period of construction activity. Chambers Wharf shall not be used as a transhipment site for materials from other worksites. The site-specific heritage management plan for this site shall include all heritage assets along the alignment of the tunnel driven from this site where not directly affected by other sites. Significant residual daytime noise effects at Tamarind Court and Coriander Court. Significant residual daytime vibration effects at Tamarind Court, Coriander Court and the Clove Building. Additional measures proposed: No additional practicable measures identified Other additional commitments in CoCP: Standard hoarding is to be installed on existing kerbline to provide barrier for noise and dust spill onto Maguire Street in front of Shad Thames Pumping Station. It shall also be provided between Wheat Wharf and the pumping station and at the rear of the pumping station in the private car park of Vanilla Court and Sesame Court. Hoarding in this car park should be located to minimise the duration of any loss of car parking facilities. The period of use of the car park by the contractor should also be minimised. A hoarding licence shall be required. The hoarded area within the car park includes the existing underground car park ventilation grill. The contractor shall not impinge the ventilation to/from the car park and shall protect the opening from any debris.

Site

Outcome

Shad Thames Pumping Station

No change to the significant noise and vibration effects at Tamarind Court, Coriander Court and the Clove Building. We will proceed in developing potential off-site mitigation and compensation measures through trigger action plans for Tamarind Court, Coriander Court and the Clove Building.

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

18

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Residual significant noise and vibration effects predicted in the application for development consent Proposed additional on-site mitigation measures and other commitments secured through the CoCP The period of closure of Maguire Street for the construction of the manhole and sewer connection shall be minimised and car parking brought back into use as soon as practicable. Vehicular access to Design Museum to be maintained unless agreed otherwise with owners. Significant residual daytime vibration effects at Free Trade Wharf South. Significant residual daytime noise effects at Free Trade Wharf South and Pier Head Prep School. Additional measures proposed: Plant will be electrically powered where practicable; contractor may use alternative means as long as it meets or exceeds our revised assessment2 5-6 metre acoustic wall at site perimeter along Free Trade Wharf2. Low noise and vibration piling methods will be used unless determined to be impossible. The first 'anchor' piles will need to be installed using a vibratory driver. These anchor piles are being installed at a location away from the closest sensitive property including Free Trade Wharf South. Programme construction of the cofferdam to ensure the section closest to Free Trade Wharf is built first so that the cofferdam barrier as secured in the CoCP Part B is installed as soon as possible. Other additional commitments in CoCP: The contractor shall convene a working group with representatives made up from residents, park user groups, local councillors, the employer and officers from the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. The existing children’s playground is to be relocated, and the multi-purpose sports pitch reconfigured and surfaced, in advance of the access road works.

Site

Outcome

King Edward Memorial Park Foreshore

Removes significant vibration effect at Free Trade Wharf South Reduces significant daytime noise effects at Free Trade Wharf South and Pier Head School but remain significant. The inclusion of a barrier on the cofferdam to the east of the site will reduce the noise impact to the ground and first floors of Free Trade Wharf South. By modifying the programme to ensure that the barrier is in place at the start of these works, the impact from other cofferdam works and barge movements will be reduced for a longer period, maximising the effectiveness of the barrier. The 5-6m acoustic wall along the eastern site perimeter will reduce the noise effects on the 2nd floor of Free Trade Wharf South and use of the electric plant where practical will reduce the noise effects during cofferdam construction and

2

This mitigation measure is not included in the draft CoCP Part B submission to ExA on 13 January 2014 but it will be included in the submission on 12 February 2014

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

19

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Residual significant noise and vibration effects predicted in the application for development consent Proposed additional on-site mitigation measures and other commitments secured through the CoCP The hoarding is to be 2.4m high planted hoarding on public facing sections. The site vehicle access route between the relocated junior play area and the Rotherhithe Tunnel Ventilation Shaft is to have secure, 2.4m high green painted steel open mesh fencing to allow views through to the river to be maintained. Outside of approved working hours and within park opening hours, the steel mesh fencing on the access route, between the relocated junior play area and the Rotherhithe Tunnel Ventilation shaft, shall be removed to allow for open access through the park to the river frontage. A site-specific lighting management plan is required. The lighting management plan shall address the impact on terrestrial and aquatic ecology and include the use of low level directional lighting where possible while meeting safe work requirements. The lighting management plan is to be submitted to the London Borough of Tower Hamlets for approval with respect to potential external impacts. Site office and welfare facilities shall not be located on the sports pitches. Barge loading and unloading, and barge movements onto or off of the berth will only occur during standard working hours. Monitoring data for noise and vibration (including trigger level alerts and historical data) will be made available via a website portal to the council and the working group. Significant residual daytime noise effects at John Scurr House No additional practicable measures identified.

Site

Outcome construction other structures (culvert, etc). It is predicted the noise levels will exceed the ABC impact criterion threshold level for approximately 24 months during:  Site set up and demolition – 3 months  Cofferdam construction – 3 months  Shaft construction – 10 months  Construction of other structures (culvert, etc) – 8 months. The worst case predicted noise level is predicted to occur for approximately 1 month as a result of demolition works. We will proceed in developing potential off-site mitigation and compensation measures through trigger action plans for Free Trade Wharf South and Pier Head Prep School.

Bekesbourne Street

No change to significant noise effects at John Scurr House. We will proceed in developing potential off-site mitigation and compensation measures through a trigger action plan for John Scurr House and Foundation for St Katherine as a special case.

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

20

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Residual significant noise and vibration effects predicted in the application for development consent Proposed additional on-site mitigation measures and other commitments secured through the CoCP Significant residual daytime noise effects at 1-39 Chilton Grove, 108-136 Chilton Grove, 52-62 Croft Street, and Cannon Wharf Block J. Significant residual day-time vibration effects at 52-62 Croft Street and Cannon Wharf Block J. Additional measures proposed: The standard hoarding shall be increased to 3.6m high around this site subject to studies confirming this would not have an adverse effect on the trees along Croft Street. Other additional commitments in CoCP: A working group shall be convened with representatives made up from residents, local councillors, contractors, the employer, and officers from the London boroughs of Southwark and Lewisham. In addition to any extended working hours being agreed with LB Lewisham, the LB Southwark shall be notified of any extended working hours at Earl Pumping Station. All concrete used on site should be delivered as pre-mixed concrete, with no use of on-site concrete batching. During the excavation of the contaminated soils, air monitoring for naphthalene shall be undertaken. Significant residual day-time noise effects at St Joseph’s Catholic School, and day and evening effects at St Paul’s Church Additional measures proposed: No schedules lorry movements to the site during school arrival and departure times, 08:30 and 09:15 and between 15:00 and 15:45. Other additional commitments in CoCP: The contractor shall provide a fulltime community liaison person dedicated to the Deptford Church Street site, to undertake routine community liaison activities with

Site

Outcome

Earl Pumping Station

The increase of site hoarding to a height of 3.6m around the perimeter of the entire site will not reduce the impact of noise to the upper floors of 108-136 Chilton Grove or 1-39 Chilton Grove as these will remain unscreened to the rest of the site. It will, however, reduce the impact of noise to residences on the first floor, and to a lesser extent, on the second floor of these buildings. Effects would therefore remain significant at these receptors. No change to the vibration effects at 52-62 Croft Street and Cannon Wharf Block J. We will proceed in developing potential off-site mitigation and compensation measures through trigger action plans for 1-39 Chilton Grove, 108-136 Chilton Grove, 52-62 Croft Street and Cannon Wharf Block J. No change to significant noise effects at St Joseph’s Catholic School and St Paul’s Church. We will proceed in developing potential off-site mitigation and compensation measures through trigger action plans St Joseph’s Catholic School (underway) and St Paul’s Church.

Deptford Church Street

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

21

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Residual significant noise and vibration effects predicted in the application for development consent Proposed additional on-site mitigation measures and other commitments secured through the CoCP St Paul’s Church (as required by the agreement with the Church). They will provide a monthly report to the employer on all of the liaison activities. The hoarding is to be planted hoarding on public facing sections except the sections located on the carriageway of Deptford Church Street which are to incorporate suitable artwork. Hoardings to be of a design appropriate to the character and amenity of the locality. Hoardings closer to the school and the church to include murals/artwork. All concrete used on site should be delivered as premixed concrete, with no use of on-site concrete batching. On-street parking bays shall be introduced along Crossfield Street to the west of the site entrance to as far as Coffey Street. Parking restrictions shall be discussed and agreed with London Borough of Lewisham as part of the construction traffic management plan. Pedestrian and vehicular access to St Joseph’s Primary School via Crossfield Street is being maintained at all times during the construction works. Segregated pedestrian route to the school along Crossfield Street shall also be provided. No significant residual effects at this site No residual effects remain that need mitigating. Additional measures proposed: All cladding and roofs of noise enclosures shall incorporate a suitable noise attenuation material with a minimum sound reduction of 20dB. Other additional commitments in CoCP: Construction traffic shall access the site from Greenwich High Road (A206) and Norman Road (A208) from the direction of Blackheath Road (A2). The existing entrance from Greenwich High Road (A206) shall be restricted to cars and light goods vehicle access apart from site set-up and removal. Vehicles heavier than 7.5t GVW will not use this access.

Site

Outcome

Greenwich Pumping Station

No reported significant effects remain that need mitigating.

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

22

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Residual significant noise and vibration effects predicted in the application for development consent Proposed additional on-site mitigation measures and other commitments secured through the CoCP The existing public footpath from Norman Road (B208) to Creekside shall be realigned, and suitable access for disabled users shall be maintained, unless agreed otherwise with the local authority. A suitable crossing point over the diverted footpath shall be provided if required. Docklands Light Railway access to their viaduct which passes over the site shall be maintained. The developer of the neighbouring developments shall be consulted during the preparation of the air quality management plan. Decommissioning of any wells must be carried out in line with the Environment Agency guidance, Good practice for decommissioning redundant boreholes and wells (October 2012). The site-specific heritage management plan for this site shall include all heritage assets along the alignment of the tunnel driven from this site where not directly affected by other sites. No significant residual effects at this site No reported significant effects remain that need mitigating.

Site

Outcome

Abbey Mills Pumping Station Beckton Sewage Treatment Works

No reported significant effects remain that need mitigating.

No significant residual effects at this site No reported significant effects remain that need mitigating. Other additional commitments in CoCP: Non-intrusive protective measures shall be put in place to prevent strike damage of the Grade II listed chimney. The London Borough of Newham and HMBCE shall be consulted on the arrangements.

No reported significant effects remain that need mitigating.

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

23

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT 3.2.3 As a result of the incorporation of the additional mitigation measures, the following significant residual effects have been removed: a. Barn Elms: Night-time noise effects at Lancaster House b. Putney Embankment Foreshore: Daytime noise effects at Star and Garter Mansions and public house accommodation c. Albert Embankment Foreshore: Daytime noise effects at Tintagel House and Vauxhall Cross, and daytime vibration effects at Camelford House, Tintagel House and Vauxhall Cross and 1-146 Bridge House

d. Heathwall Pumping Station: Daytime noise effects at Riverlight Block F e. Chambers Wharf: i ii iii f. 3.2.4 Evening and night-time noise effects at Luna House – Chambers Wharf (as described in the 2 December 2013 submission to ExA) Night-time noise effects at Axis Court – Chambers Wharf (removed in the 2 December 2013 submission to ExA) Day, evening and night-time noise effects at nos. 8-14 Fountain Green Square – Chambers Wharf

King Edward Memorial Park Foreshore: Daytime vibration effects at Free Trade Wharf South.

In addition, as a result of the incorporation of the additional mitigation measures, the following significant residual effects have been reduced but remain significant: a. Putney Embankment Foreshore: Daytime noise effects at Putney Pier houseboats b. Carnwath Road Riverside: i ii c. Day, evening and night-time noise effects at nos. 89-101 Carnwath Road Night-time noise effects at No. 5 Carnwath Road

Victoria Embankment Foreshore: Daytime noise effects at the Hispaniola and Tattershall Castle vessels

d. King Edward Memorial Park Foreshore: day time noise effects at Free Trade Wharf South e. Earl Pumping Station: Daytime noise effects at nos. 1-39 Chilton Grove, 108-136 Chilton Grove and 52-62 Croft Street f. Kirtling Street: Da-time noise effects at nine Elms Pier Houseboats.

3.3
3.3.1

Commitments through s106 obligations
In addition to the mitigation measures proposed above, we have also been actively engaging with stakeholders and communities particularly affected by the works to agree measures that will further offset the impacts. Many of these measures will be included in s106 obligations and other agreements with relevant local authorities. Table 3.2 provides examples
24

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT of a number of commitments currently agreed in principle with the relevant London local authorities. Table 3.2: Examples of s106 obligations with relevant London local authorities
1 London Borough of Southwark Ref 1-01 Section 106 obligation Riverside Primary School: Garden Mitigation Contribution towards Riverside Primary School for the cost of relocating the existing children’s vegetable garden to a more shielded part of the site Riverside Primary School: Indoor Sports and Music Contribution towards soundproofing and associated ventilation works Riverside Primary School: TA Contribution towards facilitating lessons in alternative outside spaces including provision of necessary teaching support Riverside Primary School: Wellbeing Impact Mitigation Contribution towards improving wellbeing of Riverside Primary School environment for pupils to implement agreed RPS Mitigation Measures St Joseph’s Primary School: Wellbeing Impact Mitigation Contribution towards improving wellbeing of St Joseph’s Primary School environment for pupils to implement agreed SJPS Mitigation Measures St Michaels Secondary School: Wellbeing Impact Mitigation Contribution towards improving wellbeing of St Michael’s Secondary School environment for pupils to implement agreed SMSS Mitigation Measures St Michaels Secondary School: Indoor Sports, Recreation and Music Contribution towards soundproofing and associated ventilation works Chambers Street Footway Contribution towards temporary improvements to footways along Chambers Street including removal of redundant crossovers and levelling of the surface of footways. Jamaica Road Crossing Contribution towards plans to remove subway under Jamaica Road and provide at grade pedestrian crossing. Lower Road Gyratory Contribution towards plans to remove gyratory as part of wider improvements to provide safer cycle routes in area Contribution for improvements to NCN4/Riverside Quietway Safer routes to school, contribution towards improvements to safety measures on the routes in vicinity of the site to local schools and promotion of sustainable transport Thames Path landscaping Contribution towards landscape and amenity visual and landscaping improvements along Thames Path in vicinity of site (including Bermondsey Wall East and open space on Worsley Street and Jacobs Street), including seating and ‘quiet space’, litter bins and new tree planting EMH Play Improvements Contribution for temporary play improvements to Edwardians Manor House, including measure to reinforce the ruins to enable the provision of temporary under 4s, 4-12 year olds play equipment and CCTV options Bevington Street Play Space Contribution towards temporary teenagers play space on Bevington Street, including MUGA, fencing and seats

1-02 1-03 1-04

1-05

1-06

1-07 1-08

1-09 1-10 1-11 1-12 1-13

1-14

1-15

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

25

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
1 London Borough of Southwark Ref 1-16 Section 106 obligation Contribution towards a community enhancement scheme, on the basis that the identification of measures and allocation of funds is implemented through a Community Liaison Working Group (CLWG) Monitoring Officer contribution towards appointing and employing officer who will liaise with developer to monitor compliance with obligations Community Liaison Working Group to be convened comprising representatives of the council, Cleaner Greener safer and individuals and/or organisations identified by CLWG or others and chaired by developer when dealing with matters in respect of operation and admin of Community Fund. Purpose includes operation of Community Liaison Plan and operation and admin of Community Enhancement Fund.

1-17 1-18

2 London Borough of Lewisham Ref 2-01 Section 106 obligation Contribution for London Borough of Lewisham to prepare and complete (including consultation) Landscape Masterplan to include landscaping improvements to Coffey Street and Crossfield Street and integration with landscaping of reinstated Crossfield Amenity Green Contribution for streetscape enhancements of Coffey Street and Crossfield Street Community Sport Contribution to fund sport activity days Contribution for consultation of proposed CPZ at both Deptford Church Street and Earl PS Implementation of CPZ contribution, payable if consultation results in need for implementation Open Space Linkage Contribution to fund links between existing open spaces in locality of Earl PS and Deptford Church Street to meet objectives of North Lewisham Links Strategy Alternative Outdoor Facilities Contribution, towards alternative playspace facilities and additional teaching resources for St Joseph’s School Crossfield Amenity Green Contribution towards maintenance costs for Sue Godfrey Nature Reserve associated with increased usage Earl PS Public Realm Contribution towards street improvements to Yeoman Street including relaying and/or replacing damaged cobblestone carriageway, new footways, tactile paving and tree planting Examination Period Rehousing Contribution towards rehousing pupils at St Joseph’s RC Primary School during exam periods of construction works Highways Improvement Contribution towards improvements to north/south cycle route between Deptford Church Street roundabout and Creek Road and improvements east/west through Crossfield Estate School Crossing Patrol Contribution Monitoring Officer Contribution towards costs of council officer monitoring implementation of s106 obligations

2-02 2-03 2-04 2-05 2-06

2-07 2-08 2-09

2-10 2-11

2-12 2-13

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

26

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
2 London Borough of Lewisham Ref 2-14 Section 106 obligation St Paul’s Church: Contributions such as Outreach Heritage person, improvements to toilets in crypt and controls for protecting/maintaining church organ from any effects from construction dust

3 London Borough of Tower Hamlets (all relate to King Edward Memorial Park) No 3-01 Section 106 obligation Contribution for borough to prepare and complete (including consultation) Landscape Masterplan for management of proposed park landscape improvements and use reasonable endeavours to agree with developer (TTT) and implement in collaboration with developer (including a delivery plan setting timings and how measures implemented) Relocation and improvements to tennis courts to accommodate relocated/extended children’s play area Other formal play/exercise facilities (possible outdoor gym) including new Community Hub building, associated cafe growing area and youth area Improvements to seating and tree planting within central grassed areas of park Closure of existing eastern section of Thames path and replacement with new landscaping and play areas Improved hard and soft landscaping on northern terraces Improvements to informal recreation and open space in western section of park (including relocated pond from eastern part of park) Improvement of open space at Shadwell Basin, hard and soft landscaping around dock edges including Brussels Wharf Living barges across basin for improved pedestrian link and improvement to water space as open space.

3-02 3-03 3-04 3-05 3-06 3-07 3-08 3-09

4 London Borough of Ealing No 4-01 4-02 Section 106 obligation Provision of an air quality monitoring station for at least 5 years beginning one year before the commencement of the works in a location to be agreed with LBE. The Canham Road footpath will be widened to a minimum width of 2m within the Acton Storm Tanks site. We agree to transfer this widened footpath to the local authority for adoption and ongoing maintenance, subject to agreement on maintenance payments.

3.3.2

Draft 106 agreements with the relevant London local authorities will be submitted to the ExA on 13 January 2014.

3.4
3.4.1

Low vibration piling
We have committed to use low noise and vibration piling methods (‘push piling’) to install sheet piles adjacent to residents and other communities

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

27

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT identified in the ES as being significantly affected by vibration due to vibro-piling methods. This commitment removes many of the predicted significant vibration effects across the project. We have consulted with contractors specialising in the push piling method and, combined with our knowledge of the geotechnical site information at each site, we are confident that the method can be implemented in all but exceptional circumstances. We have therefore committed to using push piling unless it is determined to be practically impossible to do so. 3.4.2 Should it be necessary to remove obstructions such as buried pieces of metal (most likely to be encountered in the top 2m of riverbed), this could be achieved ahead of the piling operation by utilising traditional excavation techniques as well as pre-auguring. The required mechanical hydraulic plant can be fixed on floating or jack-up pontoons and excavated material can be loaded onto barges for removal to a suitable disposal site. These river bed excavation techniques have been used successfully by dredging companies along the River Thames and in the foreshore for many years. From borehole records, the ground conditions across the relevant sites show that the geology is suitable to use low vibration piling techniques. The only likely cause of push piling not being achieved is the unlikely event of a manmade obstruction being encountered deep within the riverbed. Should this be the case, contingency plans for dealing with such an obstruction and continuing push piling could be: a. to remove it by using a long reach excavator b. to leave the pile short of its final drive level, cut the pile off and strengthen the temporary works bracing locally later c. 3.4.4 break up the obstruction by drill or auger. In exceptional circumstances, where push piling is found to be practically impossible, the contractor may have to employ vibration techniques in order for the works to continue. In these exceptional circumstances, the contractor is required to demonstrate that push piling is impossible and make an application to the relevant local authority for the alternative piling method through the Section 61 dispensation process (see Appendix A; Section A.1 in the CoCP Part A) unless the contingency measures and arrangements were already included in the original Section 61 consent. As part of this process, the contractor will have to reassess the likely environmental effects of the revised piling method which may trigger off-site mitigation under a TAP. Given that exposure above the vibration thresholds is both unlikely and would be of short duration, exceeding the thresholds would trigger an offer for temporary respite accommodation (eg, short-term accommodation in a hotel or equivalent). These measures must be put in place prior to the contractor recommencing the works. For the purpose of our updated noise and vibration assessments, we have made a conservative assumption that anchor piles will be required using vibro-piling techniques at the start of the cofferdam piling works. These anchor piles will be installed at a location away from the closest receptors. Based on industry standards, each anchor pile should take no longer than one day to install. We have, again conservatively, assumed that three

3.4.3

3.4.5

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

28

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT anchor piles are required for each cofferdam. To reflect the exceptional circumstances occurring at any cofferdam site, five days of vibro-piling has been incorporated in our noise and vibration assessment findings. Significant effects from vibration, if they did occur at all, would therefore be of very short duration.

3.5
3.5.1

The updates to the Environmental Assessment
Further to the identification of additional mitigation measures at certain worksites, the noise and vibration effects reported in the ES have been reviewed and revised to reflect the incorporation of these additional measures. Accordingly, ES tables 9.5.1, 9.5.2, 9.5.3 and 9.10.2 for those sites where additional mitigation is proposed have been revised and are presented in Appendix B. These tables update those presented in the ES submitted in February 2013 and will form the basis for setting the NEWT clause.

3.6
3.6.1

Off-site mitigation and trigger action plans
We appreciate that off-site mitigation, such as noise insulation or temporary rehousing, can be unpopular and disruptive for people and communities around the construction sites. The CoCP therefore requires that mitigation is maximised on site to minimise adverse effects and hence minimise the need for such off-site mitigation. Where on-site mitigation is impractical to reduce adverse effects to an acceptable level, however, then we will develop and offer further off-site mitigation and compensation measures, subject to landowner and occupier consents. It should be noted that the impact of these items to further reduce adverse effects would be on top of the on-site mitigation measures proposed in this report and, therefore, not included in the revised environmental assessments in Appendix B. We have committed to proactively develop TAPs to provide clarity on the following: a. What off-site mitigation will be offered b. The noise and vibration thresholds that would trigger the provision of the mitigation and c. To ensure that all necessary plans and approvals are in place to implement the mitigation quickly, should it be required.

3.6.2

3.6.3

3.6.4

TAPs are being prepared for: a. properties identified by the ES, as revised during the Examination period, as being potentially significantly affected for certain periods of time b. ‘special cases’ immediately around the sites (such as schools, places of worship, houseboats or sheltered accommodation, for example) where there is the potential for in-combination effects.

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

29

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT 3.6.5 We are also working with developers of new properties, located close to three of our worksites where significant noise and vibration effects are predicted to arise, in order to seek to mitigate potential noise effects prior to the new developments being occupied. A draft list of TAPs to be developed is appended to the Non statutory off-site mitigation and compensation policy and is included as Appendix C to this paper. An indicative timeline for production and implementation of the TAPs is included in Appendix D. TAPs and the process for their preparation, agreement and enforcement are set out in the revised Non-statutory off-site mitigation and compensation policy described in Section 4 and secured through Legal Agreements and appropriate project-wide requirements, including a Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking. TAPs will also consider the combined impact of noise and vibration where necessary. In summary: a. We will notify owners and occupiers that a TAP is to be prepared for their property. b. We will then contact owners and occupiers to arrange surveys needed to confirm whether noise insulation or other off-site mitigation is required and practicable and, if so, the noise insulation package to be offered and the necessary consents and works required to install the package. c. We will engage with the owners, occupiers and relevant local authorities in drafting the TAPs which will include all necessary third party approvals and consents to enable the proposed insulation package to be installed. Where required these will include, for example, planning permission, listed building consents, conservation area consents, building regulations approval and the tenant’s consent. These consents will be updated as required should there be a change in circumstances, for example, a change in tenant.

3.6.6

3.6.7 3.6.8

3.6.9

d. We will confirm the noise and as necessary vibration values that will trigger the provision of noise insulation or other off-site mitigation. e. Owners and occupiers will then be offered the mitigation package in writing by Thames Water. This will provide commitment to install the defined insulation package if the need for it is triggered. In the event that agreement cannot be reached then the TAP will be submitted to the Independent Compensation Panel (ICP) for approval or modification. The role of the ICP is described further in Section 4. f. The TAPs will be implemented by the IP and its contractors subject to the owner/occupier’s consent. The contractor will include the TAP in its planning of the construction activities and in any Section 61 consent applications to the relevant local authority. In the event it is not reasonably practicable to reduce forecast noise or vibration below the trigger values then the contractor will implement the mitigation package set out in the TAP such that it is entirely complete before the

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

30

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT works that would exceed the trigger values are started. The works are being monitored throughout their execution to ensure compliance with all commitments, consents and TAPs. 3.6.10 To demonstrate how the TAPs will work and to familiarise stakeholders, especially local authorities, and property owners/occupiers with the process, we have committed to accelerate development of several TAPs that spread across a reasonable range of residents and communities. The four TAPs which will be underway by the 12 February 2014 submission deadline include owners and occupiers of the following properties and school: a. Luna House – Chambers Wharf site b. St Joseph’s Catholic School – Deptford Church Street site c. 3.6.11 Nine Elms Houseboats – Kirtling Street site d. 89-101 Carnwath Road – Carnwath Road Riverside site. We will continue developing TAPs ahead of development consent approval and have developed an ambitious programme to complete them as soon as possible. Development of the TAPs will depend, for example, on cooperation from occupiers and relevant stakeholders to facilitate access to the residences. As previously stated, the s106 Unilateral Undertaking will require mitigation measures to be in place prior to the commencement of the construction activity that leads to the need for the particular mitigation.

3.6.12 3.6.13

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

31

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

4
4.1.1 4.1.2

Proactive policies
We have also revised our compensation policies in response to feedback from the ExA and other interested parties. The basic principles guiding the revisions include: a. the policies need to be proactive on the part of Thames Water b. the policies need to be effectively secured now as part of the application for development consent c. the policies need to be simplified and additional clarity is needed to assist in the public’s understanding and navigation through the policies

d. independent support should be available advise the public on the compensation policies and decide on potential claims. 4.1.3 In response to this, we have taken the following action in updating the polices: a. Redrafting the policies to place an obligation on Thames Water to proactively engage with potentially eligible individuals and to ensure that they are aware of and assisted with their entitlement to mitigation or compensation b. Creation of a s106 Unilateral Undertaking which will secure the policies by 12 February 2014 c. Creation of an Independent Advisory Service (IAS) which are being funded by but remain independent from Thames Water and the IP

d. Creation of an Independent Compensation Panel (ICP) which are being funded by but remain independent from Thames Water and the IP e. Discretionary elements of the policies (where it is up to Thames Water to decide if a party qualifies) are being removed f. Clarification on those that can apply for exceptional hardship includes any property within 100m of the LLAU rather than 100m from the worksite.

4.1.4

We have also consolidated several of the policies for simplification. At present, there are five separate compensation policies – the Settlement Information Paper, Noise Insulation and Temporary Rehousing Policy, Non-statutory Mitigation Policy, Non-statutory Disturbance Policy and the Exceptional hardship procedure (EHP). These have been consolidated into: a. Non statutory off-site mitigation and compensation policy (ExA Doc ref: APP68) b. Settlement Information Paper (ExA Doc ref: APP71) c. Exceptional hardship procedure (ExA Doc ref: APP69).

4.1.5

Substantial draft versions of the revised policies, with changes highlighted above, are being submitted to the ExA on 13 January 2014, with final

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

32

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT versions incorporating comments and feedback to follow on 12 February 2014.

4.2
4.2.1

Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking
It is proposed to secure the obligations on Thames Water in relation to the policies as follows:

Pre the granting of development consent
4.2.2 A Legal Agreement is to be offered to all relevant London local authorities in which Thames Water commits to: a. setting up the Independent Compensation Panel (ICP) and the Independent Advisory Service (IAS) which is to occur as soon as reasonably practicable or within six months of the date of the Agreement b. entering into a s106 unilateral undertaking (pursuant to Section 106 of the 1990 Act) on granting of the development consent to bind the obligations in the agreement to all of the DCO Land, and to further commit to comply with the all of the obligations relating to the mitigation and compensation policies/measures as set out in the deeds until at least one year after the completion of the development. 4.2.3 It is proposed that Thames Water will offer to enter into this agreement with the relevant London local authorities by 12 February 2014 submission deadline, but Thames Water will make clear that where any relevant London local authorities refuse or fail to sign the Agreement, Thames Water will comply with the terms of the Agreement with all the relevant London local authorities named on the deed as if they were a signatory party. This approach is necessary since Thames Water does not have interests in land in all of the relevant London local authorities so is unable to create obligations which are enforceable by all boroughs under s.106 of the 1990 Act.

On granting of the development consent
4.2.4 Thames Water will complete the s106 Unilateral Undertaking appended to the Agreement to ensure that all obligations relating to the policies are Section 106 planning obligations and are binding on Thames Water and on the DCO Land. The s106 Unilateral Undertaking will require mitigation measures to be in place prior to the commencement of the construction activity that leads to the need for the particular mitigation. Drafts of the Legal Agreements above and the s106 Unilateral Undertaking are being submitted to the ExA on 13 January 2014, with final versions incorporating comments and feedback to follow on 12 February 2014.

4.2.5

4.2.6

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

33

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

4.3
4.3.1

Independent Advisory Service (IAS)
We will establish an Independent Advisory Service (IAS) to be available to advise the public and other parties on their rights and available options relating to the Settlement Information Paper, the Non statutory off-site mitigation and compensation policy and the Exceptional hardship procedure. Advice is being made available to individuals and other affected parties, such as schools and communities, who either are entitled or believe they are entitled to mitigation or compensation under the policies. The IAS will advise how they may qualify for the policies and the role of the Independent Compensation Panel which is described further below. The IAS will also assist parties with completing the application forms and making a claim. Specific provisions are being made within the IAS to ensure its services are available to harder to reach groups and for those whom English is not their first language. The IAS is being funded by, but will remain independent from, Thames Water and the IP. The IAS staff will consist of qualified chartered surveyors with experience in compensation and claims. Their staff will have to demonstrate they do not have a conflict of interest with Thames Water or the IP. Procurement of the IAS is underway and will be mobilised by the end of February 2014. The IAS is being secured through the Legal Agreements and appropriate project-wide requirements including a Section 106 unilateral undertaking with the relevant London local authorities. It should be noted that the IAS is in addition to the 24 hours per day service that is currently in place and already available to the public for general project-wide issues.

4.3.2

4.3.3

4.3.4

4.3.5

4.4
4.4.1

Independent Compensation Panel
We will establish an Independent Compensation Panel (ICP) as soon as possible but no later than six months after granting of development consent. The ICP will supervise the implementation of the Settlement Procedure and the Non statutory off-site mitigation and compensation policy determine applications and settle any claims or disputes arising from the policies. The ICP will consist of a chairperson plus two additional voting members chosen on a case-by-case basis from a panel of experts. The panel of experts will provide specialist advice on technical issues and be available to the ICP. Experts will include noise and vibration specialists, transport specialists, building surveyors, quantity surveyors, tunnelling engineers, chartered surveyors, medical professionals, legal advisor, representatives from Thames Water and its contractors and other such specialists the chairperson may deem necessary.

4.4.2 4.4.3

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

34

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT 4.4.4 Thames Water will seek feedback from the relevant London local authorities on the proposed members of the ICP and will take reasonable account of their representations prior to being appointed. Decisions on applications and disputes are being resolved by a simple majority among the three members with each member having a single vote. In the event a majority cannot be achieved, the chairperson’s vote is being the casting vote. The ICP is being funded by, but will remain independent from, Thames Water and the Infrastructure Provider. The ICP is being secured through the Legal Agreements and appropriate project-wide requirements including a Section 106 unilateral undertaking with the relevant London local authorities.

4.4.5

4.4.6 4.4.7

4.5
4.5.1

Help guide and pamphlets
An update on our compensation policies will be available on our website week in mid January 2014 to reflect the refreshed Non statutory off-site mitigation and compensation policy. On appointment of the IAS, we will work with them to refresh the compensation policy family of leaflets and introduce a user-friendly guide to assist the public’s understanding of the policies. This will be one of the early deliverables produced by the IAS and will be available by the end August 2014.

4.5.2

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

35

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

5
5.1.1

Further engagement
We have continued to engage with stakeholders and communities. As part of this process, we have done the following: a. Identified areas and lists of individuals and parties to further engage. This includes those potentially affected by forecast significant and in-combination impacts and special cases such as schools, places of worship, houseboats, etc. and parties specifically raised in the hearings to date. We have been meeting with these individuals and parties to continue to listen to their concerns and discuss the proposed works, mitigation options and compensation. A schedule of meetings is attached in Appendix E. b. Contacted all stakeholders that have made relevant representations, written representations or made submissions at hearings by 31 January 2014 c. Hosted a workshop with a number of relevant London local authorities on 18 December 2013 to discuss changes to compensation policies and off-site mitigation measures. Participants included LB Southwark, LB Tower Hamlets, LB Hammersmith and Fulham, and Royal Borough of Chelsea and Kensington. Feedback has been incorporated into the latest draft of the compensation policies. Draft minutes of the workshop are attached in Appendix F.

d. Arranged a follow-up workshop with relevant London local authorities planned for 17 January 2014 to further review the revisions to the policies and capture comments from local authorities unable to attend the first workshop. e. Engaged four property owner/occupiers to develop trigger action plans by the end of February 2014.

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

36

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

6
6.1.1

Conclusion
A substantial amount of work has gone into addressing matters raised by the ExA and other interested parties. We have listened and have taken action to identify and commit to additional mitigation measures to further reduce the impact of the works. We have also revised our compensation policies to make them proactive on the part of Thames Water and confirmed how these mitigations and policies are being secured as part of the application for development consent. This takes this project further in terms of mitigation and compensation at an earlier stage than any other similar project in London. We will submit drafts of our current proposals on 13 January 2014, with final versions incorporating comments and feedback to follow on 12 February 2014.

6.1.2

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

37

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT This page is intentionally blank

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

38

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

Appendix A: Schedule of second round questions
This paper supports our responses to several second round questions, including:
Ref no. 29.06 Question Provide details of the measures proposed to mitigate any impacts on the quality of the learning environment in the school buildings at Riverside School (both main building and infant block) and the external teaching and activity areas. Provide details of the measures proposed to mitigate any impacts on the quality of the learning environment of the external teaching and activity areas of Falconbrook School and St Michael's Roman Catholic Secondary School. Explain the process which would be adopted for NI to ensure implementation before the noise events that would trigger the need for insulation occur. Provide a timeline showing the process including, but not limited to, background noise monitoring, needs assessment, contractor appointment, application for s61 consent from the local authority, obtaining appropriate listed building consents (where necessary), obtaining owners consent, NI installation and contractor start on site. What immediate mitigation or compensation would be available to households and building owners if the vibration could not be mitigated through silent/low vibration piling? Provide timescales for implementation. Indicate how the cumulative effects from noise and vibration should be considered. What mitigation measures would be available for properties where the individual assessments for noise and vibration would be less than the threshold of significance, but where combined effects would be significant? Can the Applicant provide an assessment of the impact on health and wellbeing from the combination of the impacts from noise and vibration, air quality, traffic and loss of amenity for: a) residential households within 250m of the sites b) vulnerable people, including the aged and those in assisted living accommodation within 250m of the sites c) children who both live near the sites and go to school near the sites or access their schools along routes affected by the sites d) residents of houseboats within 250m of the sites Provide a table giving a summary of health impact assessment findings, giving for each site an assessment of the health impact from the combination of the impacts as requested in the question above. Describe the measures that could be taken to mitigate the impacts on health and wellbeing.

29.07

29.13

29.15

29.16

33.03

33.04

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

39

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT This page is intentionally blank

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

40

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

Appendix B: Revised environmental assessments

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

41

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT This page is intentionally blank

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

42

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

Appendix C: Schedule of trigger action plans
This is a work in progress list of trigger action plans.
Site Hammersmith Pumping Station Barn Elms Putney Embankment Foreshore Falconbrook Pumping Station Carnwath Road Riverside Cremorne Wharf Depot Residential: Trigger action plans Fulham Reach (Phase 2 Block B, Phase 3 Block F) Special cases: Residential: Lancaster House Special cases: Residential: 10 Ruvigny Gardens, Star and Garter Mansion and Public House Special cases: Putney Pier Houseboats Residential: Special cases: Adventure playground; Library Residential: 89-101 Carnwath Road; 5 Carnwath Road Special cases: Residential: Lots Road power station development mid rise block and high rise tower Special cases: Residential: Riverlight Blocks A, B, C; Battersea power station development Blocks PS and RS4 Special cases: Nine Elms Pier Houseboats Residential: Riverlight Block F Special cases: Nine Elms Pier Houseboats Residential: Special cases: Camelford House Residential: Special cases: The Hispaniola; Tattershall Castle Residential: Special cases: City of London Boys School, HMS President Residential: Luna House, Axis Court Special cases: Riverside School Residential: Tamarind Court (front façade); Coriander Court (Maguire Street and Gainsford Street facades Special cases: Clove Building Residential: Free Trade Wharf South Special cases: Pier Head Prep School

Kirtling Street

Heathwall Pumping Station Albert Embankment Foreshore Victoria Embankment Foreshore Blackfriars Embankment Foreshore Chambers Wharf Shad Thames Pumping Station

King Edward Memorial Park

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

43

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Site Deptford Church Street Trigger action plans Residential: Special cases: St Paul’s Church; St Joseph’s Catholic School Residential: 1-39 Chilton Grove; 108-136 Chilton Grove; 52-62 Croft Street; Cannon Wharf Block J Special cases: Residential: John Scurr House Special cases: Foundation of St Katherine

Earl Pumping Station

Bekesbourne Street

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

44

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

Appendix D: Trigger action plan and off-site mitigation indicative timeline
Date January and February 2014 February to August 2014

Activity Finalise Non statutory off-site mitigation and compensation policy  Prepare example TAPs

By whom? Thames Water

Prepare TAPs where access provided  Set up Independent Compensation Panel (ICP)  Agree and approve TAPs with occupiers and owners
       

Thames Water

Q3 to Q4 2014 Q2 2015 Q2 to Q3 2015 (for early sites)

TAPs issued to tenderers for construction contracts Contracts awarded Detailed design and construction planning Contractor noise assessments Mobilise supply chain including off-site mitigation suppliers Continue engagement with communities and local authorities Agree programme for section 61 submissions including timing of applications for early activities Develop environmental management plans

Thames Water Infrastructure Provider Contractors

Q4 2015

Drafts of initial section 61 consents submitted to local authority  Engagement on draft section 61s  Prepare off-site mitigation supply chain
     

Contractors

Q4 2015 Q1 2016

Submit initial section 61 consent applications Local authority approves first section 61 consents Notify residents and communities of action under TAPs Start works not needing off-site mitigation Accept mitigation offers Mobilise mitigation suppliers

Contractor Local authority IP/Contractors Contractors Landlords/owners Contractors Contractor Contractor Contractor Contractor IP Local authority/ICP

Q1 2016 Q1 to Q2 2016 and ongoing

Continue non-TAP works  Install offsite mitigation for first works
    

Start works that trigger TAP following installation of offsite mitigation Monitor compliance Audit of contractor Review of contractor Continue sequence starting with ‘Continue

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

45

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Date Activity engagement with communities and local authorities for next phase of works, above By whom?

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

46

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

Appendix E: Schedule of Stakeholder and community meetings
Site Chambers Wharf Receptor Riverside School St Michael's School Save Your Riverside Campaign Group Luna House Axis Court 8-14 Fountain Green Square Dickens Estate Wrayburn House Downing's Road Moorings St Josephs School Shad Pumping Station KEMP Coriander Court Tamarind Court Free Trade Wharf Glamis Estate Pierhead Prep School Save KEMP Campaign Group Shadwell Basin Outdoor activity centre Deptford Church Street St Paul's Church St Joseph's Catholic Primary school Don’t Dump on Deptford's Heart Campaign Group Businesses at Crossfield Street Date of Meeting 16 December 2013 9 January 2014 Engaging with representatives regarding future meeting Engaging with representatives regarding future meeting Engaging with representatives regarding future meeting To be confirmed To be confirmed 17 January 2014 Meeting held, awaiting response for next meeting To be confirmed To be confirmed To be confirmed 10 January 2014 To be confirmed 6 January 2014 10 January 2014 To be confirmed 13 December 2013 11 December 2013 Engaging with representatives regarding future meeting Contact with two businesses (18 December 2013 and 9 January 2014) Engaging with representatives regarding future meeting

Barn Elms

Lancaster House

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

47

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Site Putney Embankment Foreshore Receptor Thai Square Restaurant (Assersons) Star and Garter PH (Glendola Leisure Ltd) Glendarvon Street Putney Pier houseboats Dormay Street Heathwall Kirtling Street Ram Brewery Site (Minerva) Riverlight (St. James) Riverlight Development (St. James) Nine Elms Pier Houseboats Battersea Power Station development Carnwath Road Carnwath Road Coalition Campaign Group Piper Building 5 Carnwath Road 89 - 101 Carnwath Road Industrial estate Victoria Embankment Tattersall castle Hispaniola Albert Foreshore Camelford House Tintagel house London Duck tours Blackfriars Bridge City of London boys school Thames Clippers Date of Meeting Awaiting response 10 January 2014 Engaging with representatives regarding future meeting 9 December 2013 18 December 2013 13 December 2013 Regular meetings 13 December 2013 Regular meetings Regular meetings Regular meetings Engaging with representatives regarding future meeting Engaging with representatives regarding future meeting Engaging with representatives regarding future meeting 16 January 2014 Regular contact Regular contact Regular contact Updates provided Awaiting response 10 January 2014 16 December 2013 9 December 2013

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

48

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

Appendix F: London local authority workshop meeting minutes Draft meeting minutes
Subject: Purpose: Date and time: Location:

Compensation and Mitigation Workshop with London Boroughs Review and gain feedback from Boroughs relating to proposed updates to the project’s compensation policies Wednesday 18 December, 10:00am ETC Venues, 57 North Wharf Road, W2 1LA David Cliff (LB Southwark), Bill Legassick (LB Southwark), Rachel McCoy (LB Southwark), Rob Lancaster (LB Tower Hamlets), Patricia Cuervo (RB Kensington and Chelsea) and David Gawthorpe (LB Hammersmith and Fulham) Thames Tideway Tunnel - Phil Stride, Jim Avant, Anne Richards, James Good, Belinda Redpath, Chris Stratford and Richard Greer Jim Avant 100-OM-PNC-00000-101047 By who

Attendees:

Minute taker: Doc ref:

Item
1

Action item/Notes for the record Phil Stride provided a brief overview of the purpose of the meeting. Key points:  The project has continued to explore further mitigations on site to reduce noise, vibration and general disruption and will continue to do so during the course of the project  Compensation policies are being simplified and made more proactive on the part of the project  Compensation policies are being secured through a s106 Unilateral Undertaking which will transfer to the IP  The project will not start works for the phase of work which gives rise to a significant effect until mitigation measures are in place

By when Note

2

A summary was given of the updates being made to the Compensation Policies and development of the s106 Unilateral Undertaking. Representatives from the Boroughs provide constructive feedback throughout. The presentation is attached in Appendix A and key actions summarised below.
David Cliff requested that we be inclusive of all residents when

Note

3

Note

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

49

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
we engage / communicate policies with local community.

4

The project team should consider those in the community whom English is not their first language in development of the remit for the Independent Advisory Panel (IAS).

Note

5

The project team to consult with local authorities in order to maximise communication of IAS to local residents and getting message out.

Note

6

The project team to ensure there is a feedback loop between decisions made by the Independent Compensation Panel (ICP) and the IAS. S106 to be updated to include this feedback.
Trigger Action Plans for key sites to be established as soon as possible to demonstrate how the process works with local authorities and local community

James Good

12 February 2014

7

TTT

ASAP

8

The project team to clarify process and programme for developing Trigger Action Plans for special cases as identified through the compensation policy

TTT

12 February 2014

Next meeting (date, time, location): Next minute taker:

TBC TBC

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

50

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

Appendix G: Revised environmental assessments
G.1
G.1.1

Introduction
The tables in this appendix show the updated assessment results following the incorporation of the further mitigation measures identified in Table 3.1. The tables take the same form as those provided in the ES (tables 9.5.1, 9.5.2 and 9.5.3, 9.10.1 and 9.10.2). The updated findings are in shown in bold, with the original result from the ES provided but with a strikethrough as follows (example). Only those sites with significant residual effects that were mitigated are included below.

G.2
G.2.1

Putney Embankment Foreshore
The ES (and subsequent errata) identified significant adverse day time effects at Star and Garter Mansions and public house and Putney Pier Houseboats, due to cofferdam piling, and at 10 Ruvigny Gardens due to construction of the temporary slipway. The changes to the assessment findings as a result of the implementation of the further mitigation identified in Table 3.1 is outlined below.

Noise
G.2.2 As a result of the use of low noise and vibration piling, receptor PE1 (Star & Garter, Mansions and public house staff accommodation) would experience a reduction in construction noise levels that brings the maximum predicted noise level to below the ABC impact criterion threshold level. The significant adverse daytime noise effect would therefore be reduced to not significant. Predicted construction noise levels at the houseboats at Putney Pier (PE10) would also be reduced but would remain above the ABC impact criterion threshold level for a shorter period of time, and would therefore remain significant for 2 months. Significant effects at 10 Ruvigny Gardens (PE9) remain as it has not been possible to identify practicable mitigation to reduce or remove these effects. For Putney Pier Houseboats (PE10), the assessment has predicted that day time construction noise levels would range between 65 and 75dBLAeq. It is predicted that these noise levels would exceed the ABC impact criterion threshold level for approximately 6 months (2 months of significant effect) during the following periods:    G.2.4 Site set up – 2 months Construction of the temporary slipway – 2 months Cofferdam construction – 2 months.

G.2.3

The worst case predicted noise level (approximately 75dBLAeq), which results in a significant adverse effect is however, predicted to occur for approximately 2 months as a result of surface breaking. For 10 Rugivny Gardens (PE9), the assessment has predicted that day time construction noise levels would range between 46 and 74dBLAeq. It is
51

G.2.5

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT predicted that these noise levels would exceed the ABC impact criterion threshold level for approximately 2 months during construction of the temporary slipway. G.2.6 The worst case predicted noise level (approximately 74dBLAeq), which results in a significant adverse effect is however, predicted to occur for approximately 1 month as a result of surface breaking.

ES Vol 7 Table 9.5.1 Noise – impacts at residential receptors (high sensitivity) Changes identified at PE1 (Star & Garter, Mansions and public house staff accommodation) and PE10 (Putney Pier Houseboats)
Ref/ a receptor (No. of noise sensitive properties) ABC impact criterion threshold level (potential significance for residential), b dBLAeq 70 65 55 Range of construction noise levels, c,d dBLAeq Typical monthly Total construc duration -tion above noise criterion levels, for all dBLAeq works, months
e

Magnitude Worst-case excess above criterion, f dBLAeq (*further assessment undertaken for excess above criterion) -2 +2* -9 -2 Duration of worstcase excess above criterion, months

PE1/ Star & Garter, Mansions and public house staff accommod ation (14) PE2/ 1-24 Kenilworth Court (24)

62-68 72 (day) 56 (evening) 53 (night)

65 56 53

02 0 0

01 0 0

75 71 63

62-69 (day) 51 (evening) 47 (night) 66-73 (day) 60 (evening) 56 (night) 56-67 (day) 49 (evening) 45 (night) 62-75 (day) 55 (evening) 52 (night) 43-67 (day) 36 (evening) 32 (night) 46-74 (day) 40 (evening) 36 (night) 65-75 80 (day) 52 (evening)

64 51 47 67 60 56 60 49 45 66 55 52 43 36 32 51 40 36 68 52

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 15 0

-6 -20 -16 -2 -11 -4 -9 -28 -22 0 -16 -11 -3 -29 -23 +4* -25 -19 +5* +10 -13

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 26 0

PE3/ 31-78 Kenilworth Court (48)

75 71 63

PE5/ 1-67 Putney Wharf Tower (50)

76 77 67

PE6/ Richmond Mansions (9)

75 71 63

PE7/ Ruvigny Mansions (15)

70 65 55

PE9/ 10 Ruvigny Gardens (12)

70 65 55

PE10/ Putney Pier Houseboats

70 65

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

52

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Ref/ a receptor (No. of noise sensitive properties) ABC impact criterion threshold level (potential significance for residential), b dBLAeq 55 76 77 67 Range of construction noise levels, c,d dBLAeq Typical monthly Total construc duration -tion above noise criterion levels, for all dBLAeq works, months
e

Magnitude Worst-case excess above criterion, f dBLAeq (*further assessment undertaken for excess above criterion) -7 -14 -31 -25 Duration of worstcase excess above criterion, months

(2) PE12/ Fulham High Street (-)

48 (night) 53-62 (day) 46 (evening) 42 (night)

48 55 46 42

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

ES Vol 7 Table 9.5.2 Noise – impacts at non-residential receptors No changes identified
Ref/receptor Recepto r sensitivi tya Range of constructio n noise levels, dBLAeqb,c, d Ambient baseline noise level, dBLAeqd Typicale monthly construc -tion noise levels, dBLAeq Magnitude

Total duration above ambient for all works, months 0

Worstcase excess above ambient, dBLAeq -14

PE4/ St Mary’s Church PE8/ Chas Newens Marine PE11/ Thai Square / Star & Garter public house PE13/ Café at 2 Putney High Street

Medium

46-62 (day)

76

50

Medium

43-71 (day)

67

46

2

+4

Medium

68-74 (day) 62 (evening)

67 62

68 62

33 0

+7 0

Medium

51-70 (day)

71

52

0

-1

a b c d

Assumed typical façade transmission loss and appropriate internal noise guidelines Floors subject to highest level assessed – not necessarily the highest floor level Construction noise only, excludes ambient noise. Refer to Volume 2 Noise level includes correction for façade acoustic reflection unless receptor position is an open outdoor space (eg park) e Most frequently occurring monthly construction noise level during works.

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

53

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

Vibration
G.2.7 There were no significant adverse vibration effects identified in the ES at Putney Embankment Foreshore. However, as a result of the use of low noise and vibration piling, predicted vibration levels at receptors PE1-PE6, PE10-PE11 and PE13 have been reduced.

ES Vol 7 Table 9.5.3 Vibration – impact and magnitude of human response to vibration impacts Changes identified at PE1 (Star & Garter, Mansions and public house staff accommodation), PE2 (1-24 Kenilworth Court), PE3 (31-78 Kenilworth Court), PE4 (St Mary’s Church), PE5 (1-67 Putney Wharf Tower), PE6 (Richmond Mansions), PE10 (Putney Pier Houseboats ), PE11 (Thai Square/ Star & Garter Public House) and PE13 (Café at 2 Putney High Street)
Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted eVDV across all activities, m/s1.75)* <0.2 <0.3 Value/ sensitivity High Magnitude

PE1

Star & Garter, Mansions and public house staff accommodation 1-24 Kenilworth Court

Low probability of adverse comment - No impact

PE2

<0.2 <0.8

High

Below Low probability of adverse comment - No impact Adverse comment possible - Impact Below Low probability of adverse comment - No impact Adverse comment possible - Impact Below Low probability of adverse comment - No impact Below Low probability of adverse comment - No impact Low probability of adverse comment - No impact Below Low probability of adverse comment - No impact Adverse comment possible - Impact Below Low probability of adverse comment - No impact Below Low probability of adverse comment - No impact Below Low probability of adverse comment - No impact Below Low probability of

PE3

31-78 Kenilworth Court

<0.2 <0.8

High

PE4

St Mary’s Church 1-67 Putney Wharf Tower

<0.2 <0.3

Medium

PE5

<0.2 <0.3

High

PE6

Richmond Mansions

<0.2 <0.8

High

PE7

Ruvigny Mansions Chas Newens Marine 10 Ruvigny Gardens Putney Pier

<0.2

High

PE8

<0.2

Medium

PE9

<0.2

High

PE

<0.2** <0.4

High

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

54

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted eVDV across all activities, m/s1.75)* Value/ sensitivity Magnitude

10

Houseboats

adverse comment - No impact Low probability of adverse comment - No impact <0.8 2.0 Medium Below Low probability of adverse comment - No Impact Adverse comment probable - Impact Below Low probability of adverse comment - No Impact Below Low probability of adverse comment - No impact Low probability of adverse comment - No impact

PE 11

Thai Square/ Star & Garter Public House

PE 12 PE 13

Fulham High Street Café at 2 Putney High Street

<0.1

High

<0.2 <0.8

Medium

*Most affected floor ** Predicted vibration levels assume groundborne transmission. For boats moored in the river it is expected that vibration transmission would be reduced and the vibration levels would be lower than those estimated.

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

55

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

Assessment summary tables
ES Vol 7 Table 9.10.1 Noise – summary of construction assessment Changes identified at PE1 9 Star & Garter, Mansions and public house staff accommodation)
Receptor Effect Significance of effect Surface construction noise PE1 - Star & Garter, Mansions and public house staff accommodation Noise Not significant Significant None No further on site mitigation practicable Not significant Significant, however properties may be eligible for compensation (see para. Error! Reference source not found.) Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Significant, however properties may be eligible for compensation (see para. Error! Reference source not found.) Significant, however properties may be eligible for temporary re-housing. The effects of temporary re-housing on the residents of the houseboats have been assessed in Vol 7 Section 10 Socio-economics. See para. Error! Reference source not found.) Not significant Mitigation Significance of residual effect

PE2 - 1-24 Kenilworth Court PE3 - 31-78 Kenilworth Court PE4 - St Mary’s Church PE5 - 1-67 Putney Wharf Tower PE6 - Richmond Mansions PE7 - Ruvigny Mansions PE8 - Chas Newens Marine PE9 - 10 Ruvigny Gardens

Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise

Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

None None None None None None None No further on site mitigation practicable

Significant

PE10 – Putney Pier Houseboats

Noise

No further on site mitigation practicable Significant

PE11 - Thai Square / Star & Garter public

Noise

Not significant

None

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

56

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Receptor house PE12 - Fulham High Street PE13 – Café at 2 Putney High Street Noise Noise Not significant Not significant Road-based construction traffic Residential and non-residential properties adjacent to the proposed vehicle route Noise Not significant River-based construction traffic PE3 - 31-78 Kenilworth Court PE9 - 10 Ruvigny Gardens PE10 - Putney Pier Houseboats Noise Noise Noise Not significant Not significant Not significant None None None Not significant Not significant Not significant None Not significant None None Not significant Not significant Effect Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

57

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT ES Vol 7 Table 9.10.2 Vibration – summary of construction assessment No changes identified
Receptor PE1 - Star & Garter, Mansions and public house staff accommodation PE2 - 1-24 Kenilworth Court PE3 - 31-78 Kenilworth Court PE4 - St Mary’s Church PE5 - 1-67 Putney Wharf Tower PE6 - Richmond Mansions PE7 - Ruvigny Mansions PE8 - Chas Newens Marine PE9 - 10 Ruvigny Gardens PE10 - Putney Pier Houseboats PE11 - Thai Square / Star & Garter public house PE12 - Fulham High Street PE13 – Café at 2 Putney High Street Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Effect Significance of effect Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant None None None None None None None None None None None None None Mitigation Significance of residual effect Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

58

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

G.3
G.3.1

Barn Elms
The ES (and subsequent errata) identified significant adverse day and night time effects at Lancaster House, due to site set up and shaft construction. The changes to the assessment findings as a result of the implementation of the further mitigation identified in Table 3.1 is outlined below.

Noise
G.3.2 As a result of avoiding the use of breakers at night, receptors BE1, 2, 4 and 5 would experience a reduction in predicted construction noise levels, however effects at these properties were not identified to be significant in the ES. For receptor BE3, at which significant residual effects were identified, the reduction would result in the removal of significant night time effects. Significant day time effects would remain at this receptor. For Lancaster House (BE3), the assessment has predicted that day time construction noise levels would range between 61 and 72dBLAeq. It is predicted that these noise levels would exceed the ABC impact criterion threshold level for approximately 7 months during the following periods:    G.3.4 Site set up – 4 months Piling - 1 month Shaft secondary lining - 2 months.

G.3.3

The worst case predicted noise level (approximately 72dBLAeq), which results in a significant adverse effect is however, predicted to occur for approximately 2 months as a result of site set up and surface breaking. For Lancaster House (BE3), the assessment has predicted that night time construction noise levels would be 50dBLAeq (worst case). It is predicted that these noise levels would exceed the ABC impact criterion threshold level for approximately 3 months during the connection tunnelling works.

G.3.5

ES Vol 6 Table 9.5.1 Noise – impacts at residential receptors (high sensitivity) Changes identified at BE1 (Pearson House), BE2 (Hunting-ford House), BE3 (Lancaster House), BE4 (Jay House) and BE5 (34-39 Stockhurst Close)
Ref/ a receptor (No. of noise sensitive properties) ABC impact criterion threshold level (potential significance for residential), b dBLAeq Range of construction noise levels, c,d dBLAeq Typical monthly construction noise levels, dBLAeq
e

Magnitude Total duration above criterion for all works, months Worst-case excess above criterion, f dBLAeq (*further assessment undertaken for excess above criterion) Duration of worstcase excess above criterion, months

BE1 Pearson House (34)

65 55 45

58 – 69 (day) 48 – 48 (eve) 44 48 – 44 48 (night)

58 48 44 48

2 0 03

+4* -7 -1 +3*

1 0 03

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

59

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Ref/ a receptor (No. of noise sensitive properties) ABC impact criterion threshold level (potential significance for residential), b dBLAeq Range of construction noise levels, c,d dBLAeq Typical monthly construction noise levels, dBLAeq
e

Magnitude Total duration above criterion for all works, months Worst-case excess above criterion, f dBLAeq (*further assessment undertaken for excess above criterion) Duration of worstcase excess above criterion, months

BE2 – Huntingford House (40) BE3 Lancaster House (24)

65 55 45 65 55 45

57 – 68 (day) 49 – 49 (eve) 46-46 49-49 (night) 61 – 72 (day) 53 – 53 (eve) 50-50 53-53 (night) 60 – 70 (day) 51 – 51 (eve) 47-47 51-51 (night) 53 – 65 (day) 43 – 43 (eve) 40-40 43-43 (night) 36 – 57 (day) 24 - 24 (eve)
g

57 49 46 49 61 53 50 53 60 51 47 51 53 43 40 43 37 24

2 0 3 7 0 3 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0

+3* -6 +1* +4 +7* -2 +5* +8 +5* -4 +2* +6* 0 -12 -5 -2 -13 -41

1 0 3 2 0 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0

BE4 - Jay House (24)

65 55 45

BE5 – 3439 Stockhurst Close (40) BE8 Queen Elizabeth Walk (3) a b c d e f g

65 55 45 70 65 55

24 - 24 24 0 -31 0 (night) Floors subject to highest noise level assessed – not necessarily the highest floor level The potential significance threshold is based on the ambient noise level as defined in Volume 2 Construction noise only, excludes ambient noise. Refer to Volume 2 Section 9.5 Noise level includes correction for façade acoustic reflection Most frequently occurring monthly construction noise level during works Positive value indicates exceedence, negative value indicates noise below criterion The receptor is more than 300m from the main worksite, and no deliveries are proposed during the night-time at this site.

Vibration
G.3.6 There were no significant adverse vibration effects identified in the ES at Barn Elms.

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

60

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

Assessment summary tables
ES Vol 6 Table 9.10.1 Noise – summary of construction assessment No changes identified
Receptor Effect Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect

Surface construction noise BE1 - Pearson House BE2 - Huntingford House BE3 - Lancaster House BE4 - Jay House BE5 – 34-39 Stockhurst Close BE6 - Scout Hut BE7- Barn Elms Boathouse BE8 - Queen Elizabeth Walk BE9 - Barn Elms Sport Centre Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise Not significant Not significant Significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant None None No further on site mitigation practicable None None None None None None Not significant Not significant Significant, however properties may be eligible for compensation (see para. 9.9.1) Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

Road-based construction traffic BE8 Queen Elizabeth Walk Noise Not significant None Not significant

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

61

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT ES Vol 6 Table 9.10.2 Vibration – summary of construction assessment No changes identified
Receptor BE1 - Pearson House BE2 - Huntingford House BE3 - Lancaster House BE4 - Jay House BE5 – 34-39 Stockhurst Close BE6 - Scout Hut BE7- Barn Elms Boathouse BE8 - Queen Elizabeth Walk BE9 - Barn Elms Sport Centre Effect Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Significance of effect Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant None None None None None None None None None Mitigation Significance of residual effect Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

62

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

G.4
G.4.1

Carnwath Road Riverside
The ES (and subsequent errata) identified significant adverse night time effects at 5 Carnwath Road and day, evening and night time effects at 89101 Carnwath Road, due to barge movements. The changes to the assessment findings as a result of the implementation of the further mitigation identified in Table 3.1 is outlined below.

Noise
River based construction traffic G.4.2 As a result of the installation of an acrylic noise screen to the river wall outside 5 Carnwath Road and 89-101 Carnwath Road, predicted noise levels from barge movements would be reduced at properties on the ground and first floor of these buildings and effects would be not significant. These screens would however not provide screening to properties at second floor and above and effects at these properties would remain significant as presented in the ES.

Vibration
G.4.3 There were no significant adverse vibration effects identified in the ES at Carnwath Road Riverside and the further mitigation does not have an effect on predicted vibration levels.

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

63

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

Assessment summary tables
ES Vol 10 Table 9.10.1 Noise - summary of construction assessment Changes identified at receptors CR1 (89-101 Carnwath Road) and CR8 (5 Carnwath Road) for river based construction traffic
Receptor Effect Significance of effect Surface construction noise CR1 - 89-101 Carnwath Road CR2 - 81-87 Carnwath Road CR3 - 50 Carnwath Road CR4 - The Piper Building CR5 - 16-25 Philpot Square CR6 - 26-41 Philpot Square CR7 - 1b Dymock Street CR8 - 5 Carnwath Road CR9 - Riverside Quarter Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant None None None None None None None None None Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Mitigation Significance of residual effect

Road-based construction traffic Residential and non-residential properties adjacent to the proposed vehicle route Noise Not significant None Not significant

River-based construction traffic CR1 - 89-101 Carnwath Road Noise Significant at properties on the second floor and above. No further on site mitigation practicable Significant, however properties may be eligible for compensation (see para. 9.9.1) Significant, however properties may be eligible for compensation (see para. 9.9.1)

CR8 - 5 Carnwath Road

Noise

Significant at properties on the second floor and above.

No further on site mitigation practicable

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

64

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT ES Vol 10 Table 9.10.2 Vibration - summary of construction assessment No changes identified
Receptor CR1 - 89-101 Carnwath Road CR2 - 81-87 Carnwath Road CR3 - 50 Carnwath Road CR4 - The Piper Building CR5 - 16-25 Philpot Square CR6 - 26-41 Philpot Square CR7 - 1b Dymock Street CR8 - 5 Carnwath Road CR9 - Riverside Quarter Effect Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Significance of effect Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant None None None None None None None None None Mitigation Significance of residual effect Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

65

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

G.5
G.5.1

Heathwall Pumping Station
The ES (and subsequent errata) identified significant adverse day time effects at Riverlight Block F due to site set up including cofferdam construction and river wall works. The changes to the assessment findings as a result of the implementation of the further mitigation identified in Table 3.1 is outlined below

Noise
G.5.2 As a result of the use of low noise and vibration piling, receptor HE4 (Riverlight) would experience a reduction in construction noise levels that brings the maximum predicted noise level down to the ABC impact criterion threshold level. The significant adverse daytime noise effect would therefore be reduced to not significant.

ES Vol 15 Table 9.5.1 Noise – impacts at residential receptors (high sensitivity) Changes identified at HE4 (Riverlight)
Ref/ a receptor (No. of noise sensitive properties) ABC impact criterion threshold level (potential significance for residential), b dBLAeq Range of construction noise levels, c,d dBLAeq Typical monthly construction noise levels, dBLAeq
e

Magnitude Total duration above criterion for all works, months Worst-case excess above criterion, f dBLAeq (further assessment undertaken for excess above criterion*) -5 -4 0 -2 -17 -15 -10 -19 -13 0 +1 -5 -2 0 -7 -1 Duration of worstcase excess above criterion, months

HE1 Elm Quay (60)

75 66 62

58 – 70 (day) 62 – 62 (eve) 62 – 62 (night) 55 – 73 (day) 50 – 50 (eve) 49 – 49 (night) 56 – 65 (day) 55 – 55 (eve) 54 – 54 (night) 69 – 75 76 (day) 62 – 62 (eve) 62 – 62 (night) 63 – 75 (day) 67 – 67 (eve) 67 – 67 (night)

64 62 62 64 50 49 58 55 54 71 62 62 68 67 67

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0

HE2 Nine Elms Pier House boats(25) HE3 River Lodge and Icon Apartments (120) HE4 Riverlight (376)

75 67 64 75 74 67 75 67 64

HE5 Embassy Gardens (-)

75 74 68

a Floors subject to highest noise level assessed – not necessarily the highest floor level b The potential significance threshold is based on the ambient noise level as defined in Volume 2 c Construction noise only, excludes ambient noise. Refer to Volume 2 Section 9.5 d Noise level includes correction for façade acoustic reflection

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

66

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
e Most frequently occurring monthly construction noise level during works f Positive value indicates exceedance, negative value indicates noise below criterion

ES Vol 15 Table 9.5.2 Noise – impacts at non-residential receptors No changes identified
Ref/receptor Receptor a sensitivity Range of construction noise levels, b,c,d dBLAeq Ambient baseline noise level, d dBLAeq Typical monthly construction noise levels, dBLAeq
e

Magnitude

Total duration above ambient for all works, months 0

Worstcase excess above ambient, dBLAeq -17

HE6 Battersea Barge

Medium

50 – 50 (eve) 49 – 49 (night)

67

50

64

49

0

-15

a Assumed typical façade transmission loss and appropriate internal noise guidelines b Floors subject to highest level assessed – not necessarily the highest floor level c Construction noise only, excludes ambient noise. Refer to Volume 2 d Noise level includes correction for façade acoustic reflection unless receptor position is an open outdoor space (eg park) e Most frequently occurring monthly construction noise level during works

Vibration
G.5.3 There were no significant adverse vibration effects identified in the ES at Heathwall Pumping Station. However, as a result of the use of low noise and vibration piling, predicted vibration levels at receptors HE5 and HE6 would reduce and effects would remain not significant.

ES Vol 15 Table 9.5.3 Vibration – impact and magnitude of human response to vibration impacts Changes identified at HE5 (Embassy Gardens) and HE6 (Battersea Barge)
Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted eVDV across all activities, 1.75 * m/s ) 0.2 Value/ sensitivity Magnitude

HE1

Elm Quay

High

Low probability of adverse comment - No impact Low probability of adverse comment -No impact Below low probability of adverse comment No impact Low probability of adverse comment - No impact Below Low probability

HE2

Nine Elms Pier House boats River Lodge and Icon Apartments Riverlight

0.2**

High

HE3

0.1

High

HE4

0.2

High

HE5

Embassy Gardens

0.2 0.5

High

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

67

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted eVDV across all activities, 1.75 * m/s ) Value/ sensitivity Magnitude

of adverse comment No impact HE6 Battersea Barge 0.2** 0.4 Medium Below Low probability of adverse comment No impact

*Most affected floor ** Predicted vibration levels assume groundborne transmission. For boats moored in the river it is expected that vibration transmission could be reduced and the vibration levels would be lower than those estimated

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

68

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

Assessment summary tables
G.5.4 There are changes to the noise assessment summary tables for Heathwall Pumping Station. ES Vol 15 Table 9.10.1 Noise – summary of construction assessment Changes identified at HE4 (Riverlight)
Receptor Effect Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect Surface construction noise HE1 - Elm Quay HE2 - Nine Elms Pier Houseboats HE3 - River Lodge and Icon Apartments HE4 – Riverlight (Block F) Noise Noise Noise Noise Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Significant None None None None No further on site mitigation practicable None None Not Significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Significant, however properties may be eligible for noise insulation, which if accepted, would reduce the effect to not significant. See para 9.9.3. Not significant Not significant

HE5 - Embassy Gardens HE6 - Battersea Barge

Noise Noise

Not significant Not significant

Road-based construction traffic Residential and non-residential properties adjacent to the proposed vehicle route Noise Not significant None Not significant

River-based construction traffic HE2 - Nine Elms Pier Houseboats HE1 - Elm Quay Noise Noise Not significant Not significant None None Not significant Not significant

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

69

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT ES Vol 15 Table 9.10.2 Vibration – summary of construction assessment No changes identified
Receptor HE1 - Elm Quay HE2 - Nine Elms Pier House boats HE3 - River Lodge and Icon Apartments HE4 - Riverlight HE5 - Embassy Gardens HE6 - Battersea Barge Effect Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Significance of effect Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant None None None None None None Mitigation Significance of residual effect Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

70

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

G.6
G.6.1

Albert Embankment Foreshore
The ES (and subsequent errata) identified significant adverse day time noise effects at Camelford House due to shaft construction, Tintagel House due to cofferdam construction and Vauxhall Cross due to cofferdam construction and demolition. Significant adverse vibration effects were also identified at 1-146 Bridge House, Camelford House, Tintagel House and Vauxhall Cross due to cofferdam piling. The changes to the assessment findings as a result of the implementation of the further mitigation identified in Table 3.1 is outlined below

Noise
G.6.2 As a result of the use of low noise and vibration piling, receptor AE1 (Peninsula Heights) would experience a reduction in construction noise levels that brings the maximum predicted noise level below to the ABC impact criterion threshold level. Receptors AE2-AE3 would also experience a reduction in predicted construction noise levels, which continue to be below the ABC impact criterion threshold level. The effects would remain not significant as reported in the ES. At receptors AE6 and AE7, predicted construction noise levels would also be reduced and effects would be reduced to not significant. Noise levels at AE5 Camelford House would remain significant due to shaft construction. For Camelford House (AE5), the assessment has predicted that day time construction noise levels would range between 60 and 80dBLAeq. It is predicted that these noise levels would exceed the ABC impact criterion threshold level for approximately 39 months during the following periods:      G.6.5 Site set up – 7 months Cofferdam construction – 5 months Shaft construction - 15 months Construction of other structures – 7 months Site restoration - 7 months.

G.6.3

G.6.4

The worst case predicted noise level (approximately 80dBLAeq), which results in a significant adverse effect is however, predicted to occur for approximately 19 months as a result of the use of breakers on site.

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

71

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT ES Vol 16 Table 9.5.1 Noise – impacts at residential receptors (high sensitivity) Changes identified at receptors AE1 9 Peninsula Heights), AE2 (151 Rivermill), AE3 (48-57 Milbank)
Ref/ a receptor (No. of noise sensitive properties) ABC impact criterion threshold level (potential significance for residential), b dBLAeq 70 67 61 AE2 151 Rivermill (40) 70 65 60 AE3 48-57 Milbank (9) 70 65 60 AE4 1-146 Bridge House (146) 75 72 64 Range of construction noise levels, c,d dBLAeq Typical monthly construc tion noise levels, dBLAeq
e

Magnitude Total duration above criterion for all works, months 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Worst-case excess above f criterion, dBLAeq (*further assessment undertaken for excess above criterion) -1 +2* 0 -2 -8 -6 -6 -8 -7 -5 -5 -6 -3 -19 -17 Duration of worstcase excess above criterion, months 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AE1 Peninsula Heights (40)

55 – 69 72 (day) 50 – 67 (eve) 53 – 59 (night) 45 – 62 64 (day) 43 – 59 (eve) 46 – 52 (night) 46 – 63 65 (day) 44 – 60 (eve) 47 – 54 (night) 48 – 72 (day) 37 – 53 (eve) 40 – 47 (night)

55 53 53 53 46 46 46 47 47 48 40 40

a b c d e f

Floors subject to highest noise level assessed – not necessarily the highest floor level The potential significance threshold is based on the ambient noise level as defined in Volume 2 Construction noise only, excludes ambient noise. Refer to Volume 2 Section 9.5 Noise level includes correction for façade acoustic reflection Most frequently occurring monthly construction noise level during works Positive value indicates exceedance, negative value indicates noise below criterion

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

72

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT ES Vol 16 Table 9.5.2 Noise – impacts at non-residential receptors Changes identified at receptors AE6 (Vauxhall Cross) and AE7 (Tintagel House)
Ref/receptor Receptor a sensitivity Range of construction noise levels, b,c,d dBLAeq Ambient baseline noise level, d dBLAeq Typical monthly construct ion noise levels, dBLAeq
e

Magnitude Total duration above ambient for all works, months 39 Worst-case excess above ambient, dBLAeq

AE5 Camelford House

Medium

60 – 80 (day)

61

60

+19

AE6 Vauxhall Medium Cross AE7 Tintagel House Medium

63 – 75 78 (day) 60 – 73 77 (day)

67 61

63 60

25 35

+8 +11 +12 +16

a b c d

Assumed typical façade transmission loss and appropriate internal noise guidelines Floors subject to highest level assessed – not necessarily the highest floor level Construction noise only, excludes ambient noise. Refer to Volume 2 Noise level includes correction for façade acoustic reflection unless receptor position is an open outdoor space (eg park) e Most frequently occurring monthly construction noise level during works

Vibration
G.6.6 As a result of the use of low noise and vibration piling, vibration effects at receptors AE1 and AE7 would reduce and remain not significant. Vibration effects at receptors AE4, AE5 and AE6 would reduce and effects would become not significant.

ES Vol 16 Table 9.5.3 Vibration – impact and magnitude of human response to vibration impacts Changes identified at AE1 (Peninsula Heights), AE4 (1-146 Bridge House), AE5 (Camelford House), AE6 (Vauxhall Cross) and AE7 (Tintagel House)
Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted eVDV across 1.75 * all activities, m/s ) <0.2 <0.4 Value/ sensitivity High Magnitude

AE1

Peninsula Heights

Below low probability of adverse comment – No impact Low probability of adverse comment – No impact

AE2

151 Rivermill

<0.1

High

Below low probability of adverse comment – No impact Below low probability of adverse comment – No impact Below low probability of

AE3

48-57 Milbank

<0.1

High

AE4

1-146 Bridge

<0.2 <1.2

High

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

73

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted eVDV across 1.75 * all activities, m/s ) Value/ sensitivity Magnitude

House

adverse comment – No impact Adverse comment probable - Impact

AE5

Camelford House

<0.2 <3.0

Medium

Below low probability of adverse comment – No impact Adverse comment probable - Impact

AE6

Vauxhall Cross

<0.2 <3.0

Medium

Below low probability of adverse comment – No impact Adverse comment probable - Impact

AE7

Tintagel House

<0.2 <1.2

Medium

Below low probability of adverse comment – No impact Adverse comment possible – Impact

*Most affected floor

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

74

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

Assessment summary tables
G.6.7 There are changes to the vibration assessment summary tables for Albert Embankment Foreshore. ES Vol 16 Table 9.10.1 Noise – summary of construction assessment Changes identified at AE6 (Vauxhall Cross) and AE7 (Tintagel House)
Receptor Surface construction noise AE1 - Peninsula Heights AE2 - 151 Rivermill AE3 - 48-57 Milbank AE4 - 1-146 Bridge House AE5 - Camelford House Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Significant None None None None No further on site mitigation practicable None No further on site mitigation practicable None No further on site mitigation practicable Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Significant, however properties may be eligible for compensation (see para. 9.8.3) Not significant Significant, however properties may be eligible for compensation (see para. 9.8.3) Not significant Significant, however properties may be eligible for compensation (see para. 9.8.3) Effect Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect

AE6 - Vauxhall Cross

Noise

Not significant Significant

AE7 - Tintagel House

Noise

Not significant Significant

Road-based construction traffic Residential and non-residential properties adjacent to the proposed vehicle route River-based construction traffic AE1 - Peninsula Heights AE4 - 1-146 Bridge House Noise Noise Not significant Not significant None None Not significant Not significant Noise Not significant None Not significant

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

75

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

76

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT ES Vol 16 Table 9.10.2 Vibration – summary of construction assessment Changes identified at AE4 (1-146 Bridge House), AE5 (Camelford House) and AE6 (Vauxhall Cross)
Receptor AE1 - Peninsula Heights AE2 - 151 Rivermill AE3 - 48-57 Milbank AE4 - 1-146 Bridge House Effect Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Significance of effect Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Significant None None None None No further on site piling mitigation practicable Mitigation Significance of residual effect Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Significant, however properties may be eligible for compensation (see para. 9.8.4) Not significant Significant, however properties may be eligible for compensation (see para. 9.8.4) Not significant Significant, however properties may be eligible for compensation (see para. 9.8.4) Not significant As discussed in para. 9.5.66, successful implementation of low vibration piling as set out in the CoCP would reduce the effect to not significant. As discussed in para. 9.5.66, successful implementation of low vibration piling as set out in the CoCP would reduce the effect to not significant. As discussed in para. 9.5.66, successful implementation of low vibration piling as set out in the CoCP would reduce the effect to not significant. Comments

AE5 - Camelford House

Vibration

Not significant Significant

None No further on site piling mitigation practicable

AE6 - Vauxhall Cross

Vibration

Not significant Significant

None No further on site piling mitigation practicable

AE7 - Tintagel House

Vibration

Not significant

None

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

77

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

G.7
G.7.1

Victoria Embankment Foreshore
The ES (and subsequent errata) identified significant adverse day time effects at the Tattershall Castle and The Hispaniola due to demolition and cofferdam piling. The changes to the assessment findings as a result of the implementation of the further mitigation identified in Error! Reference source not found. is outlined below.

Noise
G.7.2 As a result of the use of low noise and vibration piling, receptor VE1 would experience a reduction in construction noise levels brings the maximum predicted noise level below to the impact threshold level. Effects would remain not significant as presented in the ES. Receptors VE2, 3 and 5 also experience a reduction in construction noise levels that brings the maximum predicted noise level below to the ambient baseline noise level. Effects would remain not significant as presented in the ES. Receptor VE4 would see a reduction in construction noise levels which would remain above the ambient baseline noise level but effects at this receptor would remain not significant as presented in the ES. The ES identified significant adverse effects at receptors VE6 and VE7. As a result of the use of low noise and vibration piling, construction noise levels would reduce but would remain above the ambient baseline noise levels and would remain significant. For the Hispaniola (VE6), the assessment has predicted that day time construction noise levels would range between 60 and 70dBLAeq. It is predicted that these noise levels would exceed the ABC impact criterion threshold level for approximately 2 months during demolition. The worst case predicted noise level (approximately 70dBLAeq), which results in a significant adverse effect is however, predicted to occur for approximately 1 month as a result of the use of surface breakers on site. For the Tattershall Castle (VE7), the assessment has predicted that day time construction noise levels would range between 58 and 73dBLAeq. It is predicted that these noise levels would exceed the ABC impact criterion threshold level for approximately 7 months during the following periods:    G.7.7 Demolition – 4 months Cofferdam construction – 2 months Cofferdam removal –1 month

G.7.3

G.7.4

G.7.5

G.7.6

The worst case predicted noise level (approximately 73dBLAeq), which results in a significant adverse effect is however, predicted to occur for approximately 4 months as a result of the use of surface breakers on site.

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

78

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT ES Vol 17 Table 9.5.1 Noise – impacts at residential receptors (high sensitivity) Changes identified at VE1 (Whitehall Court)
Ref/ a receptor (No. of noise sensitive properties) ABC impact criterion threshold level (potential significance for residential), b dBLAeq Range of construction noise levels, c,d dBLAeq Typical monthly construction noise levels, dBLAeq
e

Magnitude Total duration above criterion for all works, months Worst-case excess above criterion, f dBLAeq (*further assessment undertaken for excess above criterion) -2 0 -4 -5 Duration of worstcase excess above criterion, months

VE1 Whitehall Court (120)

70 66 61

55-68 70 (day) 42-62 (eve) 56-56 (night)

64 42 56

0 0 0

0 0 0

a b c d e f

Floors subject to highest noise level assessed – not necessarily the highest floor level The potential significance threshold is based on the ambient noise level as defined in Volume 2 Construction noise only, excludes ambient noise. Refer to Volume 2 Section 9.5 Noise level includes correction for façade acoustic reflection Most frequently occurring monthly construction noise level during works Positive value indicates exceedance, negative value indicates noise below criterion

ES Vol 17 Table 9.5.2 Noise – impacts at non-residential receptors Changes identified at VE2 (Whitehall Gardens), VE3 (Jubilee Gardens), VE4 (Ministry of Defence), VE5 (Playhouse Theatre), VE6 (The Hispaniola) and VE7 (The Tattershall Castle)
Ref/receptor Receptor a sensitivity Range of construction noise levels, b,c,d dBLAeq Ambient baseline noise level, d dBLAeq Typical monthly construction noise levels, dBLAeq
e

Magnitude

Total duration above ambient for all works, months 1

Worstcase excess above ambient, dBLAeq -2 +2

VE2 Whitehall Gardens VE3 Jubilee Gardens VE4 Ministry of Defence (offices) VE5 Playhouse (theatre)

Medium

53-64 68 (day)

66

51

Medium Medium

47-62 66 (day) 57-69 73 (day)

67 65

60 64

0 16 18

-5 -1 +4 +8

High

49-61 63 (day) 46-46 (eve)

69 75 69 75

56 43 67 41

0 0 2 0

-8 -6 -29 +1 +6 -18

VE6 The Hispaniola (bar/ restaurant)

Medium

60-70 75 (day) 57-57 (eve)

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

79

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Ref/receptor Receptor a sensitivity Range of construction noise levels, b,c,d dBLAeq Ambient baseline noise level, d dBLAeq Typical monthly construction noise levels, dBLAeq
e

Magnitude

Total duration above ambient for all works, months 78 0 0

Worstcase excess above ambient, dBLAeq +4 +11 -7 -2

VE7 The Tattershall Castle (bar/ restaurant)

Medium

58-73 80 (day) 64-64 (eve) 64-64 (night)

69 71 66

65 64 64

a b c d

Assumed typical façade transmission loss and appropriate internal noise guidelines Floors subject to highest level assessed – not necessarily the highest floor level Construction noise only, excludes ambient noise. Refer to Volume 2 Noise level includes correction for façade acoustic reflection unless receptor position is an open outdoor space (eg park) e Most frequently occurring monthly construction noise level during works

Vibration
G.7.8 There would be no change to the predicted construction vibration levels presented in the ES.

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

80

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

Assessment summary tables
G.7.9 There are no changes to the assessment summary tables for Victoria Embankment Foreshore. ES Vol 17 Table 9.10.1 Noise – summary of construction assessment No changes identified
Receptor Effect Significance of effect Surface construction noise VE1 - Whitehall Court VE2 - Whitehall Gardens VE3 - Jubilee Gardens VE4 - Ministry of Defence VE5 - Playhouse Theatre VE6 - The Hispaniola VE7 - Tattershall Castle Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Significant Significant None None None None None No further mitigation practicable No further mitigation practicable Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Significant, however properties may be eligible for compensation (see para. 9.8.2) Significant, however properties may be eligible for compensation (see para. 9.8.2) Mitigation Significance of residual effect

Road-based construction traffic Residential and non-residential properties adjacent to the proposed vehicle route Noise Not significant None Not significant

River-based construction traffic Whitehall Court Hispaniola/Tattershall Castle Noise Noise Not significant Not significant None None Not significant Not significant

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

81

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT ES Vol 17 Table 9.10.2 Vibration – summary of construction assessment No changes identified
Receptor VE1 - Whitehall Court VE2 - Whitehall Gardens VE3 - Jubilee Gardens VE4 - Ministry of Defence VE5 - Playhouse Theatre VE6 - The Hispaniola VE7 - Tattershall Castle Effect Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Significance of effect Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant None None None None None None None Mitigation Significance of residual effect Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

82

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

G.8
G.8.1

King Edward Memorial Park Foreshore
The ES (and subsequent errata) identified significant adverse day time effects at Free Trade Wharf South due to demolition, and cofferdam and shaft construction, and at Pier Head Prep School due to site set up and demolition. Significant adverse vibration effects were also identified at Free Trade Wharf South due to cofferdam piling. The changes to the assessment findings as a result of the implementation of the further mitigation identified in Error! Reference source not found. is outlined below.

Noise
G.8.2 The inclusion of a barrier on the cofferdam to the east of the site will reduce the noise impact to the ground and first floors of Free Trade Wharf. By modifying the programme to ensure that the barrier is in place at the start of these works, the impact from other cofferdam works and barge movements will be reduced for a longer period, maximising the effectiveness of this barrier. The 5-6m acoustic wall along the eastern site perimeter will reduce the noise effects on the 2nd floor of Free Trade Wharf and use of the electric plant where practice will reduce the noise effects during cofferdam construction and construction other structures (culvert, etc). Despite this and the use of low noise and vibration piling, predicted construction noise levels would not change from those presented in the ES. This is because noise levels from demolition and shaft construction would remain. For Free Trade Wharf South (KE9), the assessment has predicted that day time construction noise levels would range between 63 and 80dBLAeq. It is predicted that these noise levels would exceed the ABC impact criterion threshold level for approximately 24 months during the following periods:     G.8.4 Site set up and demolition - 3 months Cofferdam construction - 3 months Shaft construction - 10 months Construction of other structures - 8 months.

G.8.3

The worst case predicted noise level (approximately 80dBLAeq), which results in a significant adverse effect is however, predicted to occur for approximately 1 month as a result of the use of the breaking out of hardstanding using excavator mounted breakers. For Pier Head Prep School (KE3), the assessment has predicted that day time construction noise levels would range between 47 and 65dBLAeq. It is predicted that these noise levels would exceed the ABC impact criterion threshold level for approximately 26 months during the following periods:    Site set up and demolition - 3 months Cofferdam construction - 3 months Shaft construction - 12 months

G.8.5

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

83

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT  G.8.6 Construction of other structures - 8 months.

The worst case predicted noise level (approximately 65dBLAeq), which results in a significant adverse effect is however, predicted to occur for approximately 1 month as a result of demolition.

ES Vol 21 Table 9.5.1- Noise – impacts at residential receptors (high sensitivity) No changes identified
Ref/ a receptor (No. of noise sensitive properties) ABC impact criterion threshold level (potential significance for residential), b dBLAeq Range of constructi on noise levels, c,d dBLAeq Typical monthly construction noise levels, dBLAeq
e

Magnitude Total duration above criterion for all works, months Worst-case excess above criterion, f dBLAeq (*further assessment undertaken for excess above criterion) +2* -4 Duration of worstcase excess above criterion, months

KE1/ Prospect Wharf (20) KE4/ 4 Shadwell Pierhead (3) KE5/ 35 Peartree Lane (10) KE6/ The Highway (25) KE7/ Free Trade Wharf North (20) KE8/ Free Trade Wharf Middle (20) KE9/ Free Trade Wharf South (20) KE10/ Abbotshade Road (30)

65 (day) 55 (evening)

52 – 67 (day) 33 – 51 (eve)

62 33

2 0

1 0

65 (day) 55 (evening)

39 – 57 (day) 30 – 45 (eve)

50 30

0 0

-8 -10

0 0

65 (day) 55 (evening) 78 (day) 76 (evening) 78 (day) 76 (evening) 70 (day) 65 (evening) 65 (day) 65 (evening) 65 (day) 55 (evening)

39 – 56 (day) 29 – 44 (eve) 50 – 65 (day) 36 – 52 (eve) 57 – 70 (day) 42 – 56 (eve) 59 – 72 (day) 42 – 57 (eve) 63 – 80 (day) 44 – 61 (eve) 49 – 64 (day) 38 – 53 (eve)

50 29 58 36 61 42 62 42 65 44 56 38

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 24 0 0 0

-9 -11 -13 -24 -8 -20 +2 -8 15* -4 -1 -2

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

a b c d e f

Floors subject to highest noise level assessed – not necessarily the highest floor level The potential significance threshold is based on the ambient noise level as defined in Volume 2 Construction noise only, excludes ambient noise. Refer to Volume 2 Section 9.5 Noise level includes correction for façade acoustic reflection Most frequently occurring monthly construction noise level during works Positive value indicates exceedance, negative value indicates noise below criterion

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

84

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT ES Vol 21 Table 9.5.2 Noise – impacts at non-residential receptors No changes identified
Ref / receptor Receptor sensitivitya Range of construction noise levels, dBLAeqb,c,d Ambient baseline noise level, dBLAeqd Typicale monthly construction noise levels, dBLAeq Magnitude

Total duration above ambient for all works, months 10

Worstcase excess above ambient, dBLAeq +8

KE2/ Shadwell Basin Outdoor centre KE3/ Pier Head Prep. School

Low

42 – 62 (day)

54

42

High

47 – 65 (day)

54

47

26

+11

a b c d

Assumed typical façade transmission loss and appropriate internal noise guidelines Floors subject to highest level assessed – not necessarily the highest floor level Construction noise only, excludes ambient noise. Refer to Volume 2 Noise level includes correction for façade acoustic reflection unless receptor position is an open outdoor space (eg park) e Most frequently occurring monthly construction noise level during works.

Vibration
G.8.7 As a result of the use of low noise and vibration piling, predicted construction vibration levels would reduce at receptors KE8 and KE9. Vibration effects would remain not significant at receptor KE8 as presented in the ES. Significant adverse vibration effects were predicted in the ES at KE9 and these would be reduced to not significant. ES Vol 21 Table 9.5.3 Vibration – human vibration impacts Changes identified at KE8 (Free Trade Wharf Middle) and KE9 (Free Trade Wharf South)
Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted eVDV across all activities, 1.75 * m/s ) <0.1 Value/ sensitivity Magnitude

KE1

Prospect Wharf

High

Below Low probability of adverse comment – No impact Below Low probability of adverse comment – No impact Below Low probability of adverse comment – No impact Below Low probability of adverse comment – No impact

KE2

Shadwell Basin Outdoor centre Pier Head Prep. School

<0.2

Low

KE3

<0.1

High

KE4

4 Shadwell Pierhead

<0.1

High

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

85

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted eVDV across all activities, 1.75 * m/s ) <0.1 Value/ sensitivity Magnitude

KE5

35 Peartree Lane

High

Below Low probability of adverse comment – No impact Below Low probability of adverse comment – No impact Below Low probability of adverse comment – No impact Below Low probability of adverse comment – No impact Low probability of adverse comment – No impact

KE6

The Highway

<0.1

High

KE7

Free Trade Wharf North

<0.2

High

KE8

Free Trade Wharf Middle

<0.2 <0.4

High

KE9

Free Trade Wharf South

<0.2 <1.6

High

Below Low probability of adverse comment – No impact Adverse comment probable - Impact

KE10

Abbotshade Road

<0.1

High

Below Low probability of adverse comment – No impact

*Most affected floor

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

86

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

Assessment summary tables
G.8.8 There are no changes to the noise assessment summary table for King Edward Memorial Park. There are changes to the vibration assessment summary table. ES Vol 21 Table 9.10.1 Noise – summary of construction assessment No changes identified
Receptor KE1 - Prospect Wharf KE2 - Shadwell Basin Outdoor centre KE3 - Pier Head Prep. School Effect Noise Noise Noise Significant Significance of effect Not Significant Not significant None None No further on site mitigation practicable Mitigation Significance of residual effect Not significant Not significant Significant, however properties may be eligible for compensation (see para.9.9.4) Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Significant, however properties may be eligible for noise insulation, which if accepted, would reduce the effect to not significant. See para. 9.9.3) Not significant

KE4 - 4 Shadwell Pierhead KE5 - 35 Peartree Lane KE6 - The Highway KE7 - Free Trade Wharf North KE8 - Free Trade Wharf Middle KE9 - Free Trade Wharf South

Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise

Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

None None None None None No further on site mitigation practicable

Significant

KE10 - Abbotshade Road

Noise

Not significant

None

Road-based construction traffic Residential and non-residential properties adjacent to the proposed vehicle route Noise Not significant None Not significant

River-based construction traffic KE1 - Prospect Wharf KE9 - Free Trade Wharf South Noise Noise Not significant Not significant None None Not significant Not significant

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

87

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT ES Vol 21 Table 9.10.2 Vibration – summary of construction assessment Changes identified at KE9 (Free Trade Wharf South)
Receptor KE1 - Prospect Wharf KE2 - Shadwell Basin Outdoor centre KE3 - Pier Head Prep. School KE4 - 4 Shadwell Pierhead KE5 - 35 Peartree Lane KE6 - The Highway KE7 - Free Trade Wharf North KE8 - Free Trade Wharf Middle KE9 - Free Trade Wharf South Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Effect Significance of effect Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Significant None None None None None None None None None No further on site mitigation practicable Mitigation Significance of residual effect Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Significant, however properties may be eligible for compensation (see para. 9.8.7) Not significant As discussed in para. 9.5.78, successful implementation of low vibration piling as set out in the CoCP would reduce the effect to not significant. Comments

KE10 - Abbotshade Road

Vibration

Not significant

None

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

88

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

G.9
G.9.1

Chambers Wharf
The 2 December submission (Doc ref APP31.02) provided an update to the Chambers Wharf assessment findings following the incorporation of additional mitigation which included no barge movements at night, the transportation of segments by barge, and the use of low vibration piling techniques, unless determined to be impossible. The assessment tables submitted in the 2 December submission are repeated below (changes from the ES have been illustrated as described in para 2.2.1).

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

89

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT Vol 20 Table 9.5.1 Noise – impacts at residential receptors (high sensitivity)
Ref/ a receptor (No. of noise sensitive properties) ABC impact criterion threshold level (potential significance for residential), b dBLAeq 70 60 50 CW2 Axis Court (59) 70 60 45 CW3 10-28 Chambers 65 Street (18) 60 50 CW5 Chambers Wharf 65 (-) 60 55 CW6 1-13 Loftie Street (7) 65 60 55 CW7 210-212 65 Bevington Street (12) 60 Range of construction noise c,d levels, dBLAeq Typical monthly construction noise levels, dBLAeq
e

Magnitude Total duration above criterion for all works, months Worst-case excess above f criterion, dBLAeq (*further assessment undertaken for excess above criterion) +7 9* 0 +1* -1 +7* +9 5* -3 -5 +8* -4 -2 -10 -9 -10 -3 0 -7 -4 -10 -8 -1 -0 -7 -4 0 -12 Duration of worstcase excess above criterion, months

CW1 Luna House (47)

50 – 77 79 (day) 35 -60 61 (eve) 35 – 47 57 (night) 52 – 74 75 (day) 36 - 57 (eve) 36 – 45 53 (night) 50-61 63 (day) 34-50 51(eve) 36-40 47 (night) 52-65 (day) 35-53 56 (eve) 36-45 47 (night) 49-64 65 (day) 33-53 56 (eve) 36-42 43 (night)

70 60 61 47 57 65 66 57 56 45 53 60 50 49 40 47 65 53 51 45 47 64 53 49 42 43

4 029 029 42 0 029 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 29 0 29 1 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

50-65 (day) 35-49 56 (eve)

61 49 47

0 -11 -4

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

90

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Ref/ a receptor (No. of noise sensitive properties) ABC impact criterion threshold level (potential significance for residential), b dBLAeq 50 CW8 8-14 Fountain Green Square (7) 65 60 50 CW9 35 Wapping High 65 Street (50) 60 56 CW10 Houseboats (11) 70 60 50 CW11 33 East Lane (10) 70 60 50 Range of construction noise c,d levels, dBLAeq Typical monthly construction noise levels, dBLAeq
e

Magnitude Total duration above criterion for all works, months Worst-case excess above f criterion, dBLAeq (*further assessment undertaken for excess above criterion) -1 -5 -2 1 -8 9 -4 6 -11 9 -12 16 -15 11 -12 10 -10 13 -7 -2 0 -12-13 -5 4 Duration of worstcase excess above criterion, months

35-44 45 (night) 48-63(day) 33-52 51 (eve) 35-41 44 (night) 39-54 55(day) 23-48 44(eve) 26-40 45(night) 40-58 60 (day) 27-50 47 (eve) 30- 40 43(night) 48-68 70 (day) 36-48 47 (eve) 37-48 46 (night)

44 45 60 61 52 45 41 45 53 48 44 40 45 51 52 50 47 42 43 56 57 48 47 48 46

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

91

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT Vol 20 Table 9.5.2 Noise – impacts at non-residential receptors
Ref/receptor Receptor a sensitivity Range of constructio n noise levels, b,c,d dBLAeq Ambient baseline noise level, d dBLAeq Typical monthl y constru ction noise levels, dBLAeq
e

Magnitude

Total duration above ambient for all works, months 1

Worst-case excess above ambient, dBLAeq

CW4/ St. Michael’s RC College

High

50 -58 (day)

57

56

+1

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

92

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT Vol 20 Table 9.5.4 Vibration – impact and magnitude of human response to vibration impacts
Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted eVDV across all activities, 1.75 * m/s ) <0.2 2.0 <0.2 <0.8 <0.2 <0.4 <0.1 <0.4 <0.2 <0.4 <0.2 <1.0 <0.2 <0.8 <0.2 1.4 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 <0.2 <0.4 Value/ sensitivity Magnitude

CW1 CW2 CW3 CW4 CW5 CW6 CW7 CW8 CW9 CW 10 CW 11

Luna House Axis Court 10-28 Chambers Street St Michael’s RC College Chambers Wharf 1-13 Loftie Street 210-212 Bevington Street 8-14 Fountain Green Square 35 Wapping High Street Houseboats 33 East Lane

High High High High High High High High High High High

Below Low probability of adverse comment – No impact Adverse comment probable - Impact Below Low probability of adverse comment – No impact Adverse comment possible - Impact Below Low probability of adverse comment – No impact Low probability of adverse comment - No impact Below Low probability of adverse comment – No impact Low probability of adverse comment - No impact Below Low probability of adverse comment – No impact Low probability of adverse comment - No impact Below Low probability of adverse comment – No impact Adverse comment possible - Impact Below Low probability of adverse comment – No impact Adverse comment possible - Impact Below Low probability of adverse comment – No impact Adverse comment probable - Impact Below Low probability of adverse comment - No impact Below Low probability of adverse comment - No impact Below Low probability of adverse comment – No impact Low probability of adverse comment - No impact

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

93

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT Vol 20 Table 9.5.5 Vibration – building vibration impacts and their magnitudes
Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted PPV across all activities, mm/s) <1.0 <2.0 <0.5 <0.3 Value/ sensitivity Magnitude
*

CW1 CW2 CW3

Luna House Axis Court 10-28 Chambers Street St Michael’s RC College Chambers Wharf 1-13 Loftie Street 210-212 Bevington Street 8-14 Fountain Green Square 35 Wapping High Street Houseboats 33 East Lane

High High High

Below threshold of potential cosmetic damage – No impact Below threshold of potential cosmetic damage – No impact Below threshold of potential cosmetic damage – No impact

CW4 CW5 CW6 CW7

<0.3 <0.3 <1.0 <0.5

High High High High

Below threshold of potential cosmetic damage – No impact Below threshold of potential cosmetic damage – No impact Below threshold of potential cosmetic damage – No impact Below threshold of potential cosmetic damage – No impact

CW8 CW9 CW 10 CW 11

<1.0 <1.5 <0.3 <0.3 <0.5

High High High High

Below threshold of potential cosmetic damage – No impact Below threshold of potential cosmetic damage – No impact Below threshold of potential cosmetic damage – No impact Below threshold of potential cosmetic damage – No impact

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

94

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT G.9.2 Following this exercise, the following significant effects remained at Chambers Wharf: day time noise effects at Luna House and Axis Court due to demolition The changes to the assessment findings as a result of the implementation of the further mitigation identified in Table 3.1 is outlined below.

G.9.3

Noise
River based construction traffic G.9.4 As a result of the installation of an acrylic noise screen to the river wall outside Fountain Green Square, the predicted noise levels from barge movements would be reduced at 8-14 Fountain Green Square and effects would be not significant.

Vibration
G.9.5 There were no remaining significant adverse vibration effects following the additional mitigation in the 2 December submission (Doc ref APP31.02) and the further mitigation identified in this report does not have an effect on predicted vibration levels.

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

95

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

Assessment summary tables
G.9.6 There are changes to the noise assessment summary tables for Chambers Wharf. These tables present all changes to the assessment including those identified in the 2 December submission. Vol 20 Table 9.10.1 Noise – summary of construction assessment
Receptor CW1 - Luna House Effect Noise Significance of effect Significant Mitigation No further on site mitigation practicable Significance of residual effect Significant, however properties may be eligible for noise insulation, which if accepted, would reduce the effect to not significant. See para.9.9.3 Not significant Significant, however properties may be eligible for compensation (see para. 9.9.4) Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

CW2 - Axis Court

Noise

Not significant Significant

None No further on site mitigation practicable None None None None None None None None None

CW3 - 10-28 Chambers Street CW4 - St Michael’s RC College CW5 - Chambers Wharf CW6 - 1-13 Loftie Street CW7 - 210-212 Bevington Street CW8 - 8-14 Fountain Green Square CW9 - 35 Wapping High Street CW10 - Houseboats CW11 - 33 East Lane

Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise

Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

96

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Receptor Effect Significance of effect Road-based construction traffic Residential and non-residential properties adjacent to proposed vehicle route Noise Not significant None Not significant Mitigation Significance of residual effect

River-based construction traffic CW1 - Luna House Noise Not significant Significant None No further on site mitigation practicable Not significant Significant, however properties may be eligible for noise insulation, which if accepted, would reduce the effect to not significant. See para.9.9.3 Not significant Significant, however properties may be eligible for compensation (see ES Vol 20 para. 9.9.4)

CW8 - 8-14 Fountain Green Square

Noise

Not significant Significant

None No further on site mitigation practicable

Vol 20 Table 9.10.2 Vibration – summary of construction assessment
Receptor CW1 - Luna House Effect Vibration Significance of effect Not significant Significant Mitigation None No further on site mitigation practicable Significance of residual effect Not significant Significant, however properties may be eligible for compensation (see para. 9.8.8) Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Comments As discussed in para. 9.5.97, successful implementation of low vibration piling as set out in the CoCP would reduce the effect to not significant.

CW2 - Axis Court CW3 - 10-28 Chambers Street CW4 - St Michael’s RC College CW5 - Chambers Wharf CW6 - 1-13 Loftie Street

Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration

Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

None None None None None

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

97

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Receptor CW7 - 210-212 Bevington Street CW8 - 8-14 Fountain Green Square Effect Vibration Vibration Significance of effect Not significant Not significant Significant None None No further on site mitigation practicable Mitigation Significance of residual effect Not significant None Significant, however properties may be eligible for compensation (see para. 9.8.8) Not significant Not significant Not significant As discussed in para. 9.5.97, successful implementation of low vibration piling as set out in the CoCP would reduce the effect to not significant. Comments

CW9 - 35 Wapping High Street CW10 - Houseboats CW11 - 33 East Lane

Vibration Vibration Noise

Not significant Not significant Not significant

None None None

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

98

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

G.10
G.10.1

Earl Pumping Station
The ES (and subsequent errata) identified significant adverse day time noise effects at 1-39 Chilton Grove, 108-136 Chilton Grove, 52-62 Croft Street and Cannon Wharf Block J due to shaft construction. Significant adverse vibration effects were also identified at 52-62 Croft Street and Cannon Wharf Block J due to piling. The changes to the assessment findings as a result of the implementation of the further mitigation identified in Table 3.1 is outlined below.

Noise
G.10.2 The increase of site hoarding to a height of 3.6m around the perimeter of the entire site will not reduce the impact of noise to the upper floors of 108-136 Chilton Grove or 1-39 Chilton Grove as these will remain unscreened to the rest of the site. It will, however, reduce the impact of noise to residences on the first floor, and to a lesser extent, on the second floor of these buildings. Effects would therefore remain significant at these receptors. Noise levels would range between 65 and 74dBLAeq. It is predicted that these noise levels would exceed the ABC impact criterion threshold level for approximately 48 months during the entire construction period. The worst case predicted noise level (approximately 74dBLAeq), which results in a significant adverse effect is however, predicted to occur for approximately 4 months as a result of the construction of the shaft using diaphragm walling techniques. For 108-136 Chilton Grove (EP3), the assessment has predicted that day time construction noise levels would range between 69 and 79dBLAeq. It is predicted that these noise levels would exceed the ABC impact criterion threshold level for approximately 48 months during the entire construction period. The worst case predicted noise level (approximately 79dBLAeq), which results in a significant adverse effect is however, predicted to occur for approximately 14 months as a result of the construction of the shaft using diaphragm walling techniques. For 52-62 Croft Street (EP4), the assessment has predicted that day time construction noise levels would range between 61 and 71dBLAeq. It is predicted that these noise levels would exceed the ABC impact criterion threshold level for approximately 13 months during the following activities:    G.10.8 Site set up and demolition - 3 months Shaft construction - 8 month Construction of other structures - 2 months.

G.10.3

G.10.4

G.10.5

G.10.6

G.10.7

The worst case predicted noise level (approximately 71dBLAeq), which results in a significant adverse effect is however, predicted to occur for approximately 4 months as a result of the construction of the shaft using diaphragm walling techniques.

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

99

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT G.10.9 For Cannon Wharf Block J (EP5), the assessment has predicted that day time construction noise levels would range between 62 and 77dBLAeq. It is predicted that these noise levels would exceed the ABC impact criterion threshold level for approximately 19 months during the following activities:     G.10.10 Site set up and demolition - 4 months Shaft construction - 8 month Construction of other structures - 3 months Landscaping and remodelling of site – 4 months.

The worst case predicted noise level (approximately 77dBLAeq), which results in a significant adverse effect is however, predicted to occur for approximately 1 month as a result of demolition activity during site set up.

ES Vol 22 Table 9.5.1 - Noise – impacts at residential receptors (high sensitivity) No changes identified
Ref/ a receptor (No. of noise sensitive properties) ABC impact criterion threshold level (potential significance for residential), b dBLAeq Range of construction noise levels, c,d dBLAeq Typical monthly construction noise levels, dBLAeq
e

Magnitude Total duration above criterion for all works, months Worst-case excess above criterion, f dBLAeq (further assessment undertaken for excess above criterion*) -1 -2 +9* -6 +14* -1 +6* -8 Duration of worstcase excess above criterion, months

EP1/ 18-32 Yeoman Street (8) EP2/ 1-39 Chilton Grove (39) EP3/ 108136 Chilton Grove (24) EP4/ 52-62 Croft Street (5)

65 60 65 65 65 65 65 65

57 - 64 (day) 58 (eve) 65 – 74 (day) 59 (eve) 69 – 79 (day) 64 (eve) 61 - 71 (day) 57 (eve)

61 58 70 59 71 64 62 57

0 0 48 0 48 0 13 0

0 0 4 0 4 0 4 0

EP5 / 65 62-77 (day) 65 19 +12 1 Cannon 60 63 (eve) 63 1 +3 1 Wharf block J (TBC) a Floors subject to highest noise level assessed – not necessarily the highest floor level b The potential significance threshold is based on the ambient noise level as defined in Vol 2 c Construction noise only, excludes ambient noise. Refer to Vol 2 Section 9.5 d Noise level includes correction for façade acoustic reflection e Most frequently occurring monthly construction noise level during works f Positive value indicates exceedance, negative value indicates noise below criterion

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

100

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

Vibration
G.10.11 Effects would remain significant at 52-62 Croft Street and Cannon Wharf Block J due to piling.

ES Vol 22 Table 9.5.2 Vibration – impact and magnitude of human response to vibration impacts No changes identified
Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted eVDV across all activities, 1.75 * m/s ) <0.4 Value/ sensitivity Magnitude

EP1

18-32 Yeoman Street 1-39 Chilton Grove

High

Low probability of adverse comment No impact Low probability of adverse comment No impact Low probability of adverse comment No impact Adverse comment probable - Impact Adverse comment probable - Impact

EP2

<0.4

High

EP3

108-136 Chilton Grove 52-62 Croft Street

<0.4

High

EP4 EP5

4.5 4.5

High High

Cannon Wharf, block J *Most affected floor

Assessment summary tables
ES Vol 22 Table 9.10.1 Noise – summary of construction assessment No changes identified
Receptor Effect Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect

Surface construction noise EP1 - 18-32 Yeoman Street EP2 - 1-39 Chilton Grove EP3 - 108-136 Chilton Grove Noise Significant Noise Not significant Significant None No further on site mitigation practicable No further on site mitigation practicable Not significant Significant, however properties may be eligible for compensation (see para. 9.9.4 Significant, however properties may be eligible for noise insulation, which if accepted, would reduce the effect to not significant. See para 9.9.3. Significant, however properties may be eligible for compensation (see para. 9.9.4) Significant, however properties

Noise

EP4 - 52-62 Croft Street EP5 - Cannon

Noise Noise

Significant Significant

No further on site mitigation practicable No further on site

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

101

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Receptor Wharf block J Effect Significance of effect Mitigation mitigation practicable Significance of residual effect may be eligible for noise insulation, which if accepted, would reduce the effect to not significant. See para 9.9.3.

Road-based construction traffic Residential and non-residential properties adjacent to the proposed vehicle route

Noise

Not significant

None

Not significant

ES Vol 22 Table 9.10.2 Vibration – summary of construction assessment No changes identified
Receptor Effect Significance of effect Not significant Not significant Not significant Significant Mitigation Significance of residual effect Not significant Not significant Not significant Significant, however properties may be eligible for compensation (see para. 9.8.7) Significant, however properties may be eligible for compensation (see para. 9.8.7) As discussed in para. 9.5.52, successful implementation of low vibration piling as set out in the CoCP would reduce the effect to not significant. As discussed in para. 9.5.52, successful implementation of low vibration piling as set out in the CoCP would reduce the effect to not significant. Comments

EP1 - 18-32 Yeoman Street EP2 - 1-39 Chilton Grove EP3 - 108-136 Chilton Grove EP4 - 52-62 Croft Street

Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration

None None None No further on site mitigation practicable

EP5 - Cannon Wharf block J

Vibration

Significant

No further on site mitigation practicable

G.11
G.11.1

Kirtling Street
The ES (and subsequent errata) identified significant adverse day time noise effects at Kirtling Street due to site set up, shaft construction, tunnelling and site restoration (landscaping). No significant adverse vibration effects were identified. The changes to the assessment findings

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

102

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT as a result of the implementation of the further mitigation identified in Table 3.1 is outlined below.

Noise
G.11.2 The addition of timber fenders to the pier and installation of an acoustic wall on the landside of the pier will screen the houseboats at Nine Elms Pier entirely from the noise from barges being loaded. This does not remove the evening or night effects however the excess is greatly reduced. This also reduces the contribution from this source to other receptors, however as they are much further away and other noise sources on site dominate, there is no further change to the assessment as a result of this, and the noise effect at Nine Elms Pier houseboats remains significant. The use of electric cranes wherever possible reduces the impact of noise during the whole programme, however reductions to the overall noise levels are mostly evident during the shaft excavation. As this is not the activity causing the highest noise levels at receptors there is no change to the significance decisions at any receptors, however the overall noise impact is reduced during the shaft excavation. For the houseboats at Nine Elms Pier (KS4), daytime noise levels would range between 56 and 74dBLAeq. It is predicted that these noise levels would exceed the ABC impact criterion threshold level for approximately 25 months during the construction period. The worst case predicted noise level (approximately 74dBLAeq), which results in a significant adverse effect is however, predicted to occur for approximately 3 months as a result of the jetty construction piling. For Riverlight block A (KS5), the assessment has predicted that day time construction noise levels would range between 66 and 71dBLAeq. It is predicted that these noise levels would exceed the ABC impact criterion threshold level for approximately 19 months during the main tunnel drive. The worst case predicted noise level (approximately 71dBLAeq is predicted to occur for approximately 19 months as a result of the activities on site to support the main tunnel drive and secondary lining. During the night time, the assessment has predicted that construction noise levels would range between 56 and 65 dBLAeq. It is predicted that these noise levels would exceed the ABC impact criterion threshold level for approximately 19 months during the main tunnel drive. For Riverlight block B (KS6), the assessment has predicted that day time construction noise levels would range between 74 and 80dBLAeq. It is predicted that these noise levels would exceed the ABC impact criterion threshold level for approximately 68 months during the following activities:     Site set up and demolition - 9 months Shaft construction - 14 months Main tunnel drive and secondary lining – 37 months Landscaping and remodelling of site – 8 months.

G.11.3

G.11.4

G.11.5

G.11.6

G.11.7

G.11.8

G.11.9

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

103

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT G.11.10 The worst case predicted noise level (approximately 74dBLAeq is predicted to occur for approximately 22 months as a result of the main tunnel drive. During the evening at night-time, the assessment has predicted that construction noise levels would range between 67 and 71 dBLAeq. It is predicted that these noise levels would exceed the ABC impact criterion threshold level for approximately 19 months during the main tunnel drive. For Riverlight block C (KS7), the assessment has predicted that day time construction noise levels would range between 62 and 81dBLAeq. It is predicted that these noise levels would exceed the ABC impact criterion threshold level for approximately 68 months during the following activities:     G.11.13 Site set up and demolition - 9 months Shaft construction - 14 months Main tunnel drive and secondary lining – 37 months Landscaping and remodelling of site – 8 months.

G.11.11

G.11.12

The worst case predicted noise level (approximately 81dBLAeq is predicted to occur for approximately 1 month as a result of surface breaking during the site establishment works. During the night-time, the assessment has predicted that construction noise levels would range between 59 and 62 dBLAeq. It is predicted that these noise levels would exceed the ABC impact criterion threshold level for approximately 3 months at the start of the main tunnel drive. For Battersea Power Station Block PS (KS10), the assessment has predicted that day time construction noise levels would range between 65 and 72dBLAeq. It is predicted that these noise levels would exceed the ABC impact criterion threshold level for approximately 68 months during the following activities:     Site set up and demolition - 9 months Shaft construction - 14 months Main tunnel drive and secondary lining – 37 months Landscaping and remodelling of site – 8 months.

G.11.14

G.11.15

G.11.16

The worst case predicted noise level (approximately 74dBLAeq is predicted to occur for approximately 1 month as a result of surface breaking during the jetty construction. During the evening and night-time, the assessment has predicted that construction noise levels would range between 50 and 63 dBLAeq. It is predicted that these noise levels would exceed the ABC impact criterion threshold level for approximately 3 months at the start of the main tunnel drive, after which it is screened by other building within the development. For Battersea Power Station Block RS4 (KS11), the assessment has predicted that day time construction noise levels would range between 65 and 72dBLAeq. It is predicted that these noise levels would exceed the

G.11.17

G.11.18

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

104

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT ABC impact criterion threshold level for approximately 37 months during the main tunnel drive and secondary lining. G.11.19 During the evening and night-time, the assessment has predicted that construction noise levels would range between 29 and 61 dBLAeq. It is predicted that these noise levels would exceed the ABC impact criterion threshold level for approximately 19 months during the main tunnel drive and secondary lining.

ES Vol 14 Table 9.5.1 - Noise – impacts at residential receptors (high sensitivity) No changes identified
Ref/ a receptor (No. of noise sensitive properties) ABC impact criterion threshold level (potential significance for residential), b dBLAeq Range of construction noise levels, c,d dBLAeq Typical monthly construction noise levels, dBLAeq
e

Magnitude Total duration above criterion for all works, months Worst-case excess above criterion, f dBLAeq (*further assessment undertaken for excess above criterion)

Duration of worstcase excess above criterion, months

KS1/ Shelley House (residentia l)

75 73 68

57 – 66 (day) 50 – 63 (eve) 44 – 63 (night) 56 – 78 (day) 48 – 6877 (eve) 46 – 6377 (night) 57 – 65 (day) 50 – 62 (eve) 44 – 62 (night) 41 – 60 (day) 49 – 59 (eve) 25 – 59 (night) 66 – 71

62 60 60 73 74 74 61 59 59 54 56 56 71

0 0 0 25 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 19

-9 -10 -5 +8* +1*+10* +216* -10 -11 -6 -15 -6 -3 +1*

0 0 0 325 223 223 0 0 0 0 0 0 19

KS2/ Nine Elms Pier House boats

70 67 61

KS3/ River Lodge

75 73 68

KS4/ Elm Quay

75 65 62

KS5/

70

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

105

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Ref/ a receptor (No. of noise sensitive properties) ABC impact criterion threshold level (potential significance for residential), b dBLAeq Range of construction noise levels, c,d dBLAeq Typical monthly construction noise levels, dBLAeq
e

Magnitude Total duration above criterion for all works, months Worst-case excess above criterion, f dBLAeq (*further assessment undertaken for excess above criterion)

Duration of worstcase excess above criterion, months

Riverlight Block A (Year 3 onwards)

(day) 67 61 58 – 66 (eve) 56 – 65 (night) 74 – 80 (day) 67 – 71 (eve) 67 – 71 (night) 62 – 81 (day) 59 – 63 (eve) 57 – 62 (night) 67 – 74 (day) 54 – 60 (eve) 47 – 59 (night) 65 -72 (day) 54 – 63 (eve) 50 – 63 (night) 65 – 68 (day) 52 – 61 (eve) 29 – 60 (night) 66 65 80 71 71 68 60 58 69 60 59 68 62 61 68 61 60 0 19 68 37 37 24 0 3 0 0 0 68 22 22 37 19 19 -1 +4* +10* +4* +10* +11* -4 +1* -1 -14 -9 +7* +3* +5* +3* +1* +2* 0 19 22 19 19 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 3 3 19 19 19

KS6/ Riverlight Block B

70 67 61

KS7/ Riverlight Block C

70 67 61

KS8/ 33 Nine Elms Lane (Site Year 1 only)

75 74 68

KS9/ Battersea Power Station PS KS11/ Battersea Power Station RS4

65 60 58 65 60 58

a Floors subject to highest noise level assessed – not necessarily the highest floor level

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

106

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
b The potential significance threshold is based on the ambient noise level as defined in Vol 2 c Construction noise only, excludes ambient noise. Refer to Vol 2 Section 9.5 d Noise level includes correction for façade acoustic reflection e Most frequently occurring monthly construction noise level during works f Positive value indicates exceedance, negative value indicates noise below criterion

Vibration
G.11.20 Effects would remain as per the ES ie not significant at all receptors. ES Vol 14 Table 9.5.2 Vibration – impact and magnitude of human response to vibration impacts No changes identified
Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted eVDV across all activities, 1.75 * m/s ) 0.1 Value/ sensitivity Magnitude**

KS1

Shelley House

High

Below Low probability of adverse comment No impact Low probability of adverse comment No impact Below Low probability of adverse comment No impact Below Low probability of adverse comment No impact Low probability of adverse comment No impact Low probability of adverse comment No impact Low probability of adverse comment No impact Low probability of adverse comment No impact Below Low probability of adverse comment No impact

KS2

Nine Elms Pier House boats River Lodge

0.3

High

KS3

0.1

High

KS4

Elm Quay

0.1

High

KS5

Riverlight Block A

0.2

High

KS6

Riverlight Block B

0.2

High

KS7

Riverlight Block C

0.2

High

KS8

33 Nine Elms Lane

0.2

High

KS9

Battersea Power Station - PS

0.1

High

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

107

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Ref Receptor Impact (highest predicted eVDV across all activities, 1.75 * m/s ) 0.1 Value/ sensitivity Magnitude**

KS10

Battersea Power Station - O1

Medium

Below Low probability of adverse comment No impact Below Low probability of adverse comment No impact

KS11

Battersea Power Station - RS4

0.1

High

*Most affected floor

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

108

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

Assessment summary tables
ES Vol 14 Table 9.10.1 Noise – summary of construction assessment No changes identified
Receptor Effect Significance of effect Mitigation Significance of residual effect

Surface construction noise KS1 - Shelley House KS2 - Nine Elms Pier Houseboats Noise Significant Noise Not significant None No further on site mitigation practicable Not significant Significant, however properties may be eligible for temporary re-housing. The effects of temporary re-housing on the residents of the houseboats have been assessed in Vol 14 Section 10 Socio-economics. Not significant Not significant Significant, however properties may be eligible for noise insulation, which if accepted, would reduce the effect to not significant. Significant, however properties may be eligible for noise insulation, which if accepted, would reduce the effect to not significant. Significant, however properties may be eligible for noise insulation, which if accepted, would reduce the effect to not significant. Not significant Significant, however properties may be eligible for noise insulation, which if accepted, would reduce the effect to not significant. Not significant

KS3 - River Lodge KS4 - Elm Quay KS5 - Riverlight Block A

Noise Noise Noise

Not significant Not significant Significant

None None No further on site mitigation practicable No further on site mitigation practicable No further on site mitigation practicable

KS6 - Riverlight Block B Noise KS7 - Riverlight Block C Noise KS8 - 33 Nine Elms Lane/New Covent Garden Market Site Entrance KS9 - Battersea Power Station - PS Noise KS10 - Battersea Power Station - O1 Noise Significant Not significant Significant Significant

Noise

Not significant

None No further on site mitigation practicable None

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

109

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT
Receptor KS11 - Battersea Power Station - RS4 Noise Significant Effect Significance of effect Mitigation No further mitigation on site practicable Significance of residual effect Significant, however properties may be eligible for noise insulation, which if accepted, would reduce the effect to not significant.

Road-based construction traffic Residential and non-residential properties adjacent to the proposed vehicle route Noise Not significant None Not significant

River-based construction traffic KS2 - Nine Elms Pier Houseboats KS9 - Battersea Power Station - PS Noise Noise Not significant Not significant None None Not significant Not significant

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

110

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT ES Vol 14 Table 9.10.2 Vibration – summary of construction assessment No changes identified
Receptor KS1 - Shelley House KS2 - Nine Elms Pier Houseboats KS3 - River Lodge KS4 - Elm Quay KS5 - Riverlight Block A KS6 - Riverlight Block B KS7 - Riverlight Block C KS8 - 33 Nine Elms Lane/New Covent Garden Market Site Entrance KS9 - Battersea Power Station - PS KS10 - Battersea Power Station - O KS11 - Battersea Power Station - RS4 Effect Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Vibration Significance of effect Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant None None None None None None None None None None None Mitigation Significance of residual effect Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

Summary of additional mitigation and revisions to compensation policies – DRAFT

111