You are on page 1of 43

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

Supplementary report on phase two consultation


Chapter 17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Thames Tunnel Supplementary report on phase two consultation


List of contents Page number 17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore ............................................................... 17-1 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.6 17.7 17.8 Introduction ......................................................................................... 17-1 Number of respondents ...................................................................... 17-2 Site selection ...................................................................................... 17-2 Alternative sites .................................................................................. 17-4 Management of construction works .................................................... 17-5 Permanent design and appearance .................................................. 17-24 Management of operational effects .................................................. 17-30 Our view of the way forward ............................................................. 17-38

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

List of tables Page number Table 17.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on Victoria Embankment Foreshore ................................................................. 17-2 Table 17.3.1 Views on whether Victoria Embankment Foreshore should be our preferred site (Q2) .......................................................................... 17-3 Table 17.3.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to selection of our preferred site .................................................................................. 17-3 Table 17.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection of preferred site.................................................................................................. 17-3 Table 17.4.1 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites...................................................... 17-5 Table 17.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q4a) ............................................................... 17-5 Table 17.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q4b) ................................................................................. 17-5 Table 17.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction ................................ 17-6 Table 17.5.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during construction ......................................................................... 17-7 Table 17.4.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction . 17-8 Table 17.5.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout ....................................................................................... 17-8 Table 17.5.7 Suggestions for construction site design and layout ....................... 17-8 Table 17.5.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during construction ......................................................................... 17-9 Table 17.5.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment ....................... 17-10 Table 17.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction ........................................................ 17-11 Table 17.5.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) ......... 17-12 Table 17.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction ..................................................... 17-12 Table 17.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction .................................................................................. 17-13 Table 17.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during construction ....................................................................... 17-13

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Table 17.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction . 17-14 Table 17.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development during construction.................................................. 17-15 Table 17.5.17 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socioeconomic effects during construction ........................................... 17-15 Table 17.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during construction ....................................................................... 17-15 Table 17.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during construction ................ 17-16 Table 17.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during construction ....................................................................... 17-16 Table 17.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during construction 1718 Table 17.5.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction............................................................ 17-18 Table 17.5.23 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access during construction .................................................... 17-19 Table 17.5.24 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction ....................................................................... 17-19 Table 17.5.25 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction .. 1721 Table 17.5.26 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction 17-23 Table 17.6.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right issues that have influenced our permanent design for this site? (Q5) ..................... 17-24 Table 17.6.2 Please give us your views about our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site (Q6) ....................................... 17-24 Table 17.6.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site ............................. 17-25 Table 17.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site ........................................................... 17-25 Table 17.6.5 Design suggestions ...................................................................... 17-28 Table 17.7.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q7a) ............................................................. 17-30 Table 17.7.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q7b) ............................................................................... 17-31 Table 17.7.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation .................. 17-32

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Table 17.7.4 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour during operation .......................................................... 17-32 Table 17.7.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during operation ........................................................................... 17-32 Table 17.7.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during operation ........................................................................... 17-33 Table 17.7.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during operation............................................................. 17-34 Table 17.7.8 Objections, issues and concerns f in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during operation ........................................................................... 17-34 Table 17.7.9 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation..................................... 17-35 Table 17.7.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation ...................................................................................... 17-35 Table 17.7.11 Supportive and neutral feedback comments relating to socioeconomic effects during operation ................................................ 17-36 Table 17.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during operation ........................................................................... 17-36 Table 17.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during operation .................... 17-36 Table 17.7.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities issues during operation ................................................................ 17-37 Table 17.7.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during operation ................................................................ 17-37 Table 17.7.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during operation ... 17-38

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

17
17.1
17.1.1

Victoria Embankment Foreshore


Introduction
This chapter covers the feedback comments received during phase two consultation in relation to our preferred site Victoria Embankment Foreshore. This site would be used to control the existing local combined sewer overflow (CSO), known as the Regent Street CSO, by connecting the Northern Low Level Sewer No.1 to the main tunnel. Victoria Embankment Foreshore was also our preferred site to control the Regent Street CSO at phase one consultation. For further information regarding the proposals for this site at phase two consultation, refer to the Victoria Embankment Foreshore site information paper.

Structure of this chapter


17.1.2 This chapter is organised as listed below, which reflects the structure of the phase two consultation feedback form: 17.1.3 section 17.2 Number of respondents section 17.3 Site selection section 17.4 Alternative sites section 17.5 Management of construction works section 17.6 Permanent design and appearance section 17.7 Management of operational effects section 17.8 Our view of the way forward.

In sections 17.3 to 17.7 we present details of the feedback comments raised, the types and total number of respondents, and our response to feedback comments. Where specific objections, issues or concerns have been raised, the final column of the tables indicates whether, in response to the feedback received: C we are considering or proposing change or additional mitigation1 to that set out in our phase two consultation material N we do not propose to amend our proposals.

17.1.4 17.1.5

A full list of the phase two consultation material is set out in Annex A to this report. Where a response contains a reference to our website, go to www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk for further information, or to access the documents referenced.

Mitigation here refers to a wide range of measures set out in our phase two consultation proposals including for example, the Air management plan and other documents as well as those mitigation measures set out in the PEIR.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-1

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

17.2
17.2.1

Number of respondents
A total of 22 respondents provided feedback on Victoria Embankment Foreshore, of which seven were received after the close of phase two consultation. Table 17.2.1 sets out the different groups who provided feedback for this site. Table 17.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on Victoria Embankment Foreshore Statutory consultees 6 respondents - Design Council CABE (CABE) - Consumer Council for Water (CCW) - English Heritage (EH) - Environment Agency (EA) - Greater London Authority (GLA) - Port of London Authority (PLA) Local authorities 1 respondent - City of Westminster (WCC) Landowners 2 respondents Community consultees 13 respondents Petitions 0 petitions

17.2.2

Feedback on this site was received in a number of forms, including feedback forms and correspondence (emails and letters).

17.3
17.3.1

Site selection
A series of sites is required in order to build and operate the Thames Tunnel project. To determine our preferred scheme, we are undertaking a site selection process using a methodology that was adopted after consultation with the relevant local authorities and statutory consultees. For further information on our methodology and process, refer to: Site selection project information paper, which sets out the process we followed to find and select our preferred sites Site selection methodology paper, which details the methodology used to select construction sites along the route of the main tunnel Site selection background technical paper, which provides supporting technical information to the Site selection methodology paper such as the engineering requirements for the size of construction sites. Site information papers, which provide summary information on each of our preferred sites, including the reasons for selecting them Phase two scheme development report, which describes how our proposals for the Thames Tunnel project have evolved and provides a detailed account of the site selection process for each of the preferred sites.

17.3.2

The results of the site selection process up to phase two consultation are set out in:

17.3.3

In this section, we set out the feedback comments received in relation to the selection of Victoria Embankment Foreshore as our preferred site, together with our responses. Our responses provide relevant details of the site selection process and its findings up to phase two consultation. Where appropriate, we have also identified further work that we have undertaken in relation to our preferred site, such as the preparation of our Preliminary environmental information report (PEIR). As part of the project design development process, we continue to assess how the effects arising from the proposed development can be addressed. The output of our assessment up to phase two consultation is contained in appendix P of the Design development report and our PEIR (volume 20). Where respondents commented on matters relating to management of construction works, permanent design and appearance or the management of operational effects at Victoria Embankment Foreshore, these comments are reported in sections 17.5 to 17.7.

17.3.4

Number of respondents
17.3.5 During phase two consultation, respondents were asked to comment on the decision to select Victoria Embankment Foreshore as our preferred site to intercept the Regent Street CSO (see question 2 of the phase two consultation form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). Table 17.3.1 sets out details of the different groups who responded and were asked to select supportive, opposed/concerned or dont know/unsure. Tables 17.3.2 and 17.3.4 then detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments selected supportive, opposed/concerned or dont know/unsure.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-2

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Table 17.3.1 Views on whether Victoria Embankment Foreshore should be our preferred site (Q2) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 1 0 1 6 0 8 3 3 2 3 2 1 1 Supportive Opposed/concerned 1 - EA Dont know/unsure

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to our preferred site Table 17.3.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to selection of our preferred site Ref 17.3.6 17.3.7 Supportive and neutral comments Support the use of the preferred site. Qualified support for the preferred site included: - the site is generally in the right location, although the structure in the River Thames has not been designed to take account of navigational risk
- does not appear to be any realistic

Respondent ID LR9447 GLA, 9427

No. 1 2

Our response Your support is noted and welcomed. Refer to paragraph 17.5.16, for a response to navigational risk assessment.

alternative; Thames Water should undertake further work to ensure that the site can be delivered in an acceptable way

As set out in appendix P of the Phase two scheme development report, we consider Victoria Embankment Foreshore the most suitable site. Since selecting Victoria Embankment Foreshore as our preferred site, we have begun assessing the likely significant effects arising from our proposals. Refer to our PEIR (volume 20) and draft Code of construction practice (CoCP) for further details. Your comment is noted.

- reserve final judgement until the proposals

are submitted. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to our preferred site Table 17.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection of preferred site Ref 17.3.8 Objections, issues and concerns Object to the use of this preferred site. In 1 particular, the Environment Agency is opposed in principle to the use of any foreshore sites along the Thames Tideway as this is likely to lead to a number of detrimental effects to flood risk management, biodiversity and recreation although I recognise the environmental benefits that the Thames Tunnel project will Respondent ID EA No. 1 Our response The sites that we consulted on at phase two consultation have been identified through an extensive site selection process (see our Site selection methodology paper on our website). We consulted on and agreed the methodology with key stakeholders including potentially directly affected local authorities and utilised a multidisciplinary approach to assess potential CSO sites against engineering, planning, environmental, property and community considerations. We recognise that, given the locations where we are seeking to construct and operate the tunnel, many of the shortlisted sites are constrained.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-3

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns deliver and there is a need to develop as near to the river as possible.

Respondent ID

No.

Our response However, based on our assessment we consider that, on balance, Victoria Embankment Foreshore is the most suitable site. This is because the use of the foreshore is preferable to the temporary loss of and the potential permanent effects on the Grade II listed Victoria Embankment Gardens. For further details on the results of the site selection process, including our assessment of shortlisted sites, refer to appendix P of the Phase two scheme development report. The shortlisted sites were listed in the Victoria Embankment Foreshore site information paper. Appendix P of the Phase two scheme development report sets out all the sites assessed as part of the site selection process, including the shortlisted sites. We took whether a site is brownfield or greenfield/open space into account along with other considerations, as set out in the Site selection methodology paper. CSOs need to be intercepted along the line of the existing sewer that flows into the River Thames. CSO interception sites need to be as close to the line of the sewer as practicable so there are few options and a more localised approach is required. In the case of the Regent Street CSO, the overflow point is located within our proposed site and, as explained in our response to paragraph 17.3.8, we consider any landbased sites identified through our site selection process less suitable. The cofferdam structure has been located further south along the River Thames foreshore, away from the Golden Jubilee footbridge/Hungerford rail bridge, in order to minimise the risk of disturbance to the London Underground Bakerloo Line tunnels and reduce the potential for effects on river flow and river services. This would also remove the need to move the Hispaniola restaurant ship during construction works. We therefore consider that the proposals presented at phase two consultation are more appropriate. We are considering ways to reduce the projection of the temporary site footprint into the River Thames. Refer to paragraph 17.5.53, for a response to comments regarding the effect on the Tattershall Castle.

17.3.9

Query why shortlisted sites have not been 1 identified.

EH

17.3.10

Site selection should avoid greenfield sites 1 and open space. Site selection should not use sites within the 1 River Thames foreshore.

9055

17.3.11

EA

17.3.12

Do1not support changes to the extent of the WCC, 9432LO preferred site since phase one consultation/do not support the specific location of the site, specifically: - encourage a reduction in the site footprint to minimise the projection into the river - the ship bar will not be able to remain in its current location; the nature of the business means that it is very sensitive to location. The WCC draft City Management Plan seeks to continue its existing policy to restrict moorings except in exceptional circumstances; this means that getting planning permission to relocate the bar may be difficult.

Shortlisted sites
17.3.13 No feedback comments were received in relation to the shortlisted sites.

17.4
17.4.1

Alternative sites
During phase two consultation, respondents were invited to suggest alternative sites that they thought should be used to intercept the Regent Street CSO instead of Victoria Embankment Foreshore (see question 3 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). No alternative sites were suggested. Respondents made the following comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites:

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-4

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites Table 17.4.1 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites Ref 17.4.2 Comments No alternative site is available; Thames Water has done its best to survey alternative sites. Respondent ID 7404 No. 1 Our response Your support is welcomed and noted.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites 17.4.3 No objections, issues and concerns were raised in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites.

17.5
17.5.1 17.5.2

Management of construction works


This section sets out comments received during phase two consultation in relation to the management of construction works at Victoria Embankment Foreshore. This includes the identification of site specific issues arising from construction activities and proposals for addressing these issues. During phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with Victoria Embankment Foreshore during construction and the ways to address these issues (see questions 4a and 4b of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The first part of question 4a and 4b asked respondents to select agree, disagree or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in tables 17.5.1 and 17.5.2. Tables 17.5.3 to 17.5.26 detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments confirmed whether the right issues and the ways to address those issues had been identified. Table 17.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q4a) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 0 1 4 0 5 4 0 1 1 3 1 Yes No Dont know/unsure

Table 17.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q4b) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 0 1 4 0 5 4 0 1 1 3 1 Yes No Dont know/unsure

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-5

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

17.5.3

The following sections set out the feedback comments received from respondents in connection with the identification of key issues associated with Victoria Embankment Foreshore during construction and proposals to address these issues. Feedback comments are organised under common themes. The themes are: General themes: General feedback comments on key issues General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues

Topic-based themes

Air quality and odour Construction working hours and programme Construction site design and layout Historic environment Land quality and contamination Lighting Natural environment (aquatic) Natural environment (terrestrial)

Noise and vibration Open space and recreation Planning and development Socio-economic Structures and utilities Townscape and visual Transport and access Water and flood risk

General feedback comments on the identified key issues


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the identified key issues 17.5.4 17.5.5 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to general comments on the identified key issues during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to general comments on the identified key issues during construction.

General feedback comments on the measures proposed to address the key issues
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues 17.5.6 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues Table 17.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction Ref 17.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns Construction impacts must be minimised at every stage of construction. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response We are developing a CoCP that will set out how we would manage our construction sites to minimise disruption to nearby communities. Measures proposed to address potential likely significant effects are being further developed and considered as part of the environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Outcome N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-6

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Air quality and odour


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour 17.5.8 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to air quality and odour during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour Table 17.5.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during construction Ref 17.5.9 Objections, issues and concerns Dust and dirt arising from construction activities. Respondent ID 8277LO No. 1 Our response Our Managing construction project information paper and draft CoCP set out how dust control measures and dust monitoring equipment would be put in place to minimise effects of dust from construction activities. Our draft CoCP confirms that an Air quality management plan will be prepared and implemented for each site to control dust emissions, and proposed techniques would be in line with best practice guidelines. Our preliminary assessment of likely significant air quality effects, as reported in our PEIR (volume 20, section 4), did not identify any significant effects at residential or other sensitive receptors (such as schools) near this site. Further assessment of nearby properties will be undertaken as part of our on-going environmental impact assessment work and this will be reported in the Environmental statement that is to be submitted with our DCO application. If significant effects are identified, appropriate mitigation would be proposed. We have set out measures in our draft CoCP that would be adopted to limit vehicle and plant emissions, including using low emission vehicles, turning off engines when not needed and minimising vehicle movements around the site. Our preliminary assessment outlined in our PEIR (volume 20, section 4) stated that, with these measures in place, we do not expect any significant local air quality effects arising from vehicle and plant emissions at this site. We are preparing a full assessment for submission in the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application, which will include dispersion modelling. Dispersion modelling will assess the likely significant effects of the construction phase at all proposed sites for the relevant short- and long-term NO2 and PM10 air quality objectives. Where significant effects are identified, appropriate mitigation would be proposed. Outcome N

17.5.10

Effect of construction traffic emissions on air quality.

GLA

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour 17.5.11 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-7

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour Table 17.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction Ref 17.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns The GLA and London Council's Best Practice Guidance (BPG) The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition should be implemented. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response We can confirm that the Best Practice Guidance has been taken into account in developing our proposals for this site. Our draft CoCP sets out measures for managing our works as well as details of the various regulatory regimes and guidance that we would need to comply with, such as the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Mayor of London's Ambient Noise Strategy 2004 and The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition - Best Practice Guidance 2008, as well as various British Standards. Outcome C

Construction working hours and programme


17.5.13 No feedback comments were received in relation to the construction working hours and programme.

Construction site design and layout


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction site design and layout 17.5.14 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to construction site design and layout. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout Table 17.5.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout Ref 17.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns Concerned about the extent of the construction site. Respondent ID WCC No. 1 Our response The site area proposed is required in order to carry out the works on this site. The layout has been developed to minimise the site area where possible; however, we continue to consider ways to reduce the construction footprint in the river. This matter will be the subject of targeted consultation for this site. We are carrying out a navigational risk assessment for the site and will continue to work with the PLA as we do so. We would implement appropriate mitigation measures identified in the navigational risk assessment. Outcome C

17.5.16

Existence and/or size of structure(s) within the foreshore of the River Thames; in respect of possible effects on navigational risk.

8853

Suggestions for construction site design and layout Table 17.5.7 Suggestions for construction site design and layout Ref 17.5.17 Suggestions for construction design and layout Further consideration must be given to the extent and construction of the cofferdam in order to maintain navigational safety and to ensure barges can moor parallel to the tidal stream. Respondent ID PLA No. 1 Our response We will review methods for constructing the cofferdam and the orientation of the moored barge. This matter will be the subject of targeted consultation for this site. Outcome C

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-8

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Ref 17.5.18

Suggestions for construction design and layout Beneficial reuse of materials should be considered.

Respondent ID WCC

No. 1

Our response

Outcome

The draft Waste strategy provides a framework for the N management of materials and waste that would be produced during the construction and operational phases. The Waste strategy provides a strategic direction and framework for the management of excavated materials and waste, while ensuring that legislative, policy, environmental, financial and corporate drivers are all addressed and met. The contractor would manage the excavated materials and wastes generated at worksites, in accordance with the Waste strategy and the waste hierarchy, and within the relevant regulatory controls and cost restraints under the general protocols. It is anticipated that the majority of the material to be removed would be excavated material, which would generally be categorised as non-waste material. The contractor would be required to ensure that the requirements of the waste hierarchy are enforced. The waste management hierarchy sets out how waste operators, carriers and producers should manage their waste in priority order: prevention, preparing for reuse, recycling, other recovery (for example, energy recovery) and disposal. Mitigation measures proposed to address water issues will be presented in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of our DCO application.

Historic environment
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment 17.5.19 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the historic environment during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment Table 17.5.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during construction Ref 17.5.20 17.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns Effect of construction activities on the Whitehall Conservation Area. Effect of construction activities on listed buildings or structures, including the Embankment. Respondent ID GLA GLA No. 1 1 Our response The site is located within the Whitehall Conservation Area and an area with a number of listed buildings and structures. The site would necessarily involve direct impacts on the listed river wall in order to access the sewer built into it, as well as removing, storing and reinstating the listed lamp standards, as outlined in the PEIR (volume 20, section 7). The likely significant effects of the development will be assessed in the environmental impact assessment and presented in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of our DCO application. Our draft CoCP sets out a range of measures to safeguard historic assets during construction that our contractor would Outcome C C

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-9

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response be required to implement. We are considering changes to our site design that will be the subject of targeted consultation. Our phase two consultation material included a preliminary assessment of likely significant archaeological effects, as detailed in the PEIR (volume 20, section 7). Our preliminary assessment determined that the potential for archaeological remains in the channel is low due to probable dredging. However, there is the potential for palaeo-environmental remains. The desk-based study of the site suggests that no buried heritage assets of very high significance are anticipated that might merit a mitigation strategy of permanent preservation in situ. An assessment of the likely significant effects on the historic environment is being completed as part of our environmental impact assessment. We are consulting with English Heritage as part of this process. Our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) sets out a range of measures that would be adopted by our contractor in respect of archaeology and a full assessment of the likely significant effects of the scheme on the historic environment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be set out in our Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. As set out in our CoCP, we would put in place procedures to ensure that construction works are appropriately monitored to identify and record any archaeological finds.

Outcome

17.5.22

Effect of construction activities on archaeology.

EH

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment 17.5.23 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures to address the effects on the historic environment during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment Table 17.5.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment Ref 17.5.24 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on mitigation. Respondent ID EH No. 1 Our response Outcome

An assessment of the likely significant effects on the historic N environment is being completed as part of our environmental impact assessment. We are consulting with English Heritage as part of this process. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Additionally, our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) sets out a range of measures to safeguard the historic environment during construction. Such measures include confirmation that works close to listed buildings would be undertaken in accordance with all requirements set

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-10

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response out in the Development Consent Order and that protection measures, as required, would be put in place at the start of the works. We would also notify English Heritage and the WCC prior to undertaking works and would continue to engage with them closely on the planning of the works. Our CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) sets out our approach to protecting the historic environment, including listed structures, during construction. Measures include preparing a Heritage management plan; implementing protective measures, such as temporary support, hoardings and barriers around heritage assets; careful choice of plant; condition surveys; and procedures for the emergency repair of any damage to listed buildings.

Outcome

17.5.25

Provide suitable protection for listed structures during construction.

GLA

Land quality and contamination


17.5.26 No feedback comments were received in relation to land quality and contamination during construction.

Lighting
17.5.27 No feedback comments were received in relation to lighting during construction.

Natural environment (aquatic)


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) 17.5.28 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) Table 17.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction Ref 17.5.29 Objections, issues and concerns Effect on foreshore habitat(s), although of poor species diversity, including impacts of relocating the Tattershall Castle and any dredging requirements. Respondent ID EA, GLA, LR9491 No. 3 Our response As part of our PEIR (volume 20, section 5), we assessed the likely significant construction effects of the proposed development on aquatic ecology, including the foreshore habitat. The PEIR considered the likely significant effects on the foreshore and River Thames and recognised a number of impacts, including those associated with a new mooring and any necessary channel reshaping or dredging. Many of the effects would be controlled by the measures set out in our CoCP. It is also noted that many effects would be temporary and the habitat would recover following removal of the temporary structures. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We are preparing a full aquatic ecology assessment for submission in the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application. Outcome N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) 17.5.30 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to the measures to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) issues during construction.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-11

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) Table 17.5.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) Ref 17.5.31 Objections, issues and concerns Provision of compensation habitat, including refuges for fish and other species. Respondent ID LR9491 No. 1 Our response Many of the effects during the construction phase would be temporary and we anticipate that the habitat would recover following removal of the temporary structures. We do not believe that it is necessary to provide any compensation habitat for the construction phase. Outcome N

Natural environment (terrestrial)


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) 17.5.32 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 17.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Ref 17.5.33 Objections, issues and concerns Loss of trees arising from construction activities. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response Outcome

Our proposals for this site would require the removal of four N semi-mature London plane trees to enable access to the site. These trees are considered to have a low intrinsic biodiversity value and are unlikely to support any notable species; however we recognise that they possess amenity and townscape value. We have sought to locate our site to minimise the loss of trees and our landscaping plans include planting new trees to replace those that would be lost. All other trees within or close to the site would be subject to tree protection measures, as detailed in our draft CoCP. Our contractor would implement the identified measures where practicable and in consultation with the WCC tree officer. We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. As part of this, we carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. This included our draft CoCP and PEIR (volume 20). We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient. Further assessment will be undertaken as part of our on-going environmental impact assessment work and this will be reported in the Environmental statement to be submitted with our DCO application. If significant effects are identified, appropriate mitigation would be proposed. There are no existing buildings on the site but the significance of the effects on all potential habitats will be assessed and reported in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of the application. N

17.5.34

More information is needed on the effect of construction activities on the natural environment.

LR9491

17.5.35

Should consider the potential importance of any existing buildings for protected species.

LR9447

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-12

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) 17.5.36 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures to address the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 17.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Ref 17.5.37 17.5.38 Objections, issues and concerns Trees must be retained/protected during construction. Any other vegetation/habitat lost during construction must be replaced. Respondent ID GLA GLA No. 1 1 Our response Outcome

Our proposals for this site would require the removal of four N semi-mature London plane trees to enable access to the site. These trees are considered to have a low intrinsic N biodiversity value and are unlikely to support any notable species; however, we recognise that they possess amenity and townscape value. We have sought to locate our site to minimise the loss of trees and our landscaping plans include planting new trees to replace those that would be lost. All other trees within or close to the site would be subject to tree protection measures, as detailed in our draft CoCP. Our contractor would implement the identified measures where practicable and in consultation with the WCC tree officer. All construction activities would be contained within our proposed construction site. We have not identified the need to provide compensatory land-based habitat at this site, as set out in our PEIR (volume 20, section 6). We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of the likely significant effects arising from the proposals, including effects on notable species. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. N N

17.5.39 17.5.40

Locate construction activities within the site to avoid sensitive and designated areas. Other natural environment mitigation included: - maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity through an effective mitigation package
- Thames Water should take steps to secure

LR9491 LR9447, LR9491

1 2

the long-term protection of any protected species that may be impacted.

Noise and vibration


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to noise and vibration 17.5.41 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to noise and vibration during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration Table 17.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during construction Ref 17.5.42 17.5.43 Objections, issues and concerns General noise effects arising from construction activities. General vibration effects arising from construction activities. Respondent ID 8277LO 8277LO No. 1 1 Our response As set out in our Victoria Embankment Foreshore site information paper, the contractor would be required to implement noise and vibration control measures at the site, in line with the requirements of the CoCP. The contractor would also need to gain approval from the WCC prior to the construction work through a Section 61 application under the Control of Pollution Act which would set out specific working methods and the measures to minimise noise and Outcome N N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-13

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response vibration. This would ensure that the noise levels are reasonable and best practical means are applied. The measures would be agreed with local authority environmental health officers. Additionally we would implement best practice measures to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment, and use of enclosures to provide acoustic screens. Full details of the measures that would be adopted for the construction will be set out in the CoCP submitted with our DCO application. Our PEIR (volume 20, section 9) sets out our preliminary qualitative assessment of likely significant noise and vibration from construction site activities; noise from construction traffic on roads outside the site; and noise and vibration from the operational site. The proposals set out in our draft CoCP are included in the assessment. The PEIR assessment used the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)'s London noise maps. The Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application will include an assessment of noise and vibration that will be completed in line with the methodology that is compliant with BS4142 and has been agreed with the WCC. If significant noise effects are identified at a site, we would set out appropriate mitigation measures to provide appropriate attenuation.

Outcome

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration 17.5.44 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to measures to address the effects of noise and vibration issues during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration Table 17.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction Ref 17.5.45 Objections, issues and concerns Suggestion for a project commitment to follow the Section 61 CoPA process. Respondent ID WCC No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted. We can confirm that, as detailed in our draft CoCP, we would require our contractor to apply for consents under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act. Outcome N

Open space and recreation


17.5.46 No feedback comments were received in relation to open space and recreation during construction.

Planning and development


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to planning and development 17.5.47 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to planning and development during construction.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-14

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development Table 17.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development during construction Ref 17.5.48 Objections, issues and concerns Proposals will lead to planning blight. Respondent ID LR13378 No. 1 Our response Statutory procedures would be in place for those eligible to seek compensation. Our Exceptional hardship procedure was published at phase two consultation and sets out our compensation programme. Any claims for statutory blight can be made after the DCO application has been submitted. Our site information paper identifies a potential nearby permanent relocation site to the south, which will be considered. Statutory procedures would be in place for those eligible for compensation, should it not be possible to relocate the Tattershall Castle. We have undertaken a review of adopted planning policy relevant to the project that has informed our proposals for this site. As a result, we do not believe that our proposals, including appropriate mitigation, are contrary to the relevant adopted policy. Further details on how we have taken these policies into account can be found in the PEIR (volume 20) and Scheme development report appendix P and Design development report appendix P. Outcome N

17.5.49

Other planning and development issues included: - Westminster's emerging City Management Plan appears to seek to continue its existing policy to restrict moorings except in exceptional circumstances. Those circumstances may not apply to the Tattershall Castle, which may mean that planning permission for relocation would not be forthcoming
- further assessment and development of

WCC, 9432LO

the proposals need to take full account of borough and mayoral policies.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development 17.5.50 17.5.51 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development during construction.

Socio-economic
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects Table 17.5.17 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects during construction Ref 17.5.52 Supportive and neutral comments No objection to the Tattershall Castle's proposed relocation. Respondent ID EH No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects Table 17.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during construction Ref 17.5.53 17.5.54 17.5.55 Objections, issues and concerns Temporary business relocation and associated effects on the Tattershall Castle. Permanent business relocation and associated effects. Detrimental effect on business operations of Respondent ID EH 9432LO, LR13378 GLA, 8277LO, 9432LO, LR13378 No. 1 2 4 Our response Outcome

Any works at the proposed worksite would mitigate any N adverse impacts on tourism, buses, taxis, parking and access to the river. The Thames Path would be diverted N during construction, utilising a safe route to enable access to Victoria Embankment and minimal impact on river access. N The diverted route would be agreed with the WCC and TfL.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-15

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns the Hispaniola and the Tattershall Castle.

Respondent ID

No.

Our response Due to the location of our proposed work site, we would need to relocate the Tattershall Castle, as identified in our site information paper. We recognise that the relocation of the vessel would have an effect on the business and provided a preliminary assessment in the socio-economic chapter of our PEIR (volume 20, section 10). Landowners may have a statutory entitlement to claim compensation for the diminution of the value of their property due to the construction of the tunnel. In addition to the statutory process we have published an Exceptional hardship procedure which sets out how we would assess claims from householders who contend that they are suffering exceptional hardship as a result of being unable to sell their property because it is potentially impacted by our currently published proposals. We have also published a Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme which sets out details of compensation that would be available during construction for damage or loss, required protection measures and compulsory purchase.

Outcome

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects 17.5.56 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects Table 17.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during construction Ref 17.5.57 Objections, issues and concerns Provide alternative business premises for the Tattershall Castle. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response As shown in our site information paper we intend to relocate the Tattershall Castle south of its existing location so that the business can continue to operate. Outcome N

Structures and utilities


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation structures and utilities 17.5.58 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to structures and utilities issues during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation structures and utilities Table 17.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during construction Ref 17.5.59 Objections, issues and concerns Structural damage to the river wall and the integrity of any temporary structures used to replace the river wall during construction will need to be taken into account. Respondent ID WCC No. 1 Our response Our Settlement project information paper provides information on our approach to controlling and limiting ground movement, which can cause settlement, associated with construction of the tunnel and shaft. It is acknowledged that construction of the tunnel would cause some small movements in the ground, the level of which would depend on a range of factors including the size and depth of construction works as well as existing ground conditions. Outcome N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-16

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response We are assessing the potential likely significant effects of ground movement in advance of the works and, where necessary, would carry out protective measures. We would also monitor actual ground movement during and after the tunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted. We would also carry out a defects survey on buildings located over, or close to, our tunnels and worksites where we consider this necessary. The method used for assessing settlement is similar to that used for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, the Jubilee Line extension, and Crossrail. In the unlikely event of damage occurring to property due to our construction works taking place nearby, disturbance compensation may be available as detailed in our Guide to the Thames Tunnel project compensation programme.

Outcome

17.5.60

Effect on underground transportation lines including the proximity to the Bakerloo and District Line tunnels.

GLA

The location of the Bakerloo and District Line tunnels is a N factor that has influenced our proposals for this site and we have discussed our approach with Transport for London (TfL) as part of our design development process. We do not consider that the presence of the tunnels would preclude development at this site, which was chosen partly on the basis of its distance from the tunnel (a closer location was suggested at phase one consultation). We would take this into account in implementing our construction works at this site. Our Settlement project information paper provides information on our approach to protecting against the likely significant effects of settlement associated with the construction of the tunnel. We would undertake studies to identify any effects our construction work may have on third party structures (such as buildings, bridges and tunnels). The studies may recommend particular construction methods or, in a very limited instances, protection works. These measures are in line with best practice guidelines and details will be set out in the CoCP that we will submit with our DCO application. Any utilities close to or within our sites would be surveyed prior to and protected during construction. We do not consider that the presence of utilities would preclude development at this site. We propose to continue detailed discussions with the WCC in relation to this matter. We envisage that this would be likely but propose advance discussions with the WCC in terms of the principle and the design. N

17.5.61 17.5.62

Effect of construction activities on other below-ground infrastructure. Effect on other proposed below-ground infrastructure, including pipe subway. Query whether communications cables would be connected in the pipe subway.

WCC GLA

1 1

17.5.63

WCC

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities 17.5.64 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during construction.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-17

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities Table 17.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during construction Ref 17.5.65 17.5.66 Objections, issues and concerns Undertake protection works. Other structures and utilities mitigation included an asset protection agreement. Respondent ID GLA WCC No. 1 1 Our response Our Settlement project information paper provides information on our approach to protecting against the likely significant effects of settlement associated with the construction of the tunnel. We would undertake studies to identify any effects our construction work may have on third party structures (such as buildings, bridges, tunnels and utilities). The studies may recommend particular construction methods or, in a very limited instances, protection works. These measures are in line with best practice guidelines and details will be set out in the CoCP that we will submit with our DCO application. Outcome N N

Townscape and visual


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to townscape and visual effects 17.5.67 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects Table 17.5.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction Ref 17.5.68 Objections, issues and concerns Effect of construction activities the London View Management Framework (LVMF) view 17A.1 and 17A.2 from Hungerford Bridge upstream. Effect of construction activities and structures on LVMF views. Effect on river views including the effect of the proposed re-location of the Tattershall Castle. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response Outcome

17.5.69 17.5.70

GLA EH

1 1

We recognise that the townscape value of this site is high C and is subject to a number of policy designations. A preliminary assessment of likely significant townscape and visual effects has been undertaken and is presented in the PEIR (volume 20, section 11). We are developing this C further with a townscape and visual impact assessment as part of our environmental impact assessment that will be C submitted with our DCO application. This will identify any likely significant effects of our proposed construction activities, and any mitigation required to address such effects. The PIER states that the site falls within the LVMF linear view 9A.1 (King Henry VII's Mound, Richmond to St Paul's Cathedral) and that the site falls below the frame of this view. We note that LVMF river prospect view 17A.1 and 17A.2 from Hungerford Bridge upstream would be unobstructed under our agreed viewpoint 2.3. We intend that the Tattershall Castle would be permanently relocated as near to the current location as possible, thereby minimising potential effects on local river views.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address townscape and visual effects 17.5.71 17.5.72 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address townscape and visual effects No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual during construction.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-18

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Transport and access


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access Table 17.5.23 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access during construction Ref 17.5.73 Supportive and neutral comments Support proposed use of barges to transport materials. Respondent ID PLA No. 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access Table 17.5.24 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction Ref 17.5.74 Objections, issues and concerns It is not clear what the scale of transport effects will be; the assessment to date is very vague: - further information on the type, and number of vehicles that will require access to the site and the frequency at which access would be required
- access will need to be considered in terms

Respondent ID WCC

No. 1

Our response As part of our PEIR (volume 20, section 12) we assessed the construction transport effects on pedestrian and cycle routes; bus and other public transport routes and patronage; parking; and highway layout, operation and capacity as well as the likely significant effects on residential amenity. As part of the assessment we have considered the effects of lorry and (where applicable) barge transport, based on a methodology that has been discussed and agreed with the WCC and TfL. The PEIR was available as part of our phase two consultation. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We are preparing a full Transport assessment for submission as part of our DCO application. The Transport assessment will consider the cumulative effects of our works with other strategic developments in the local area. We expect that we would need to strengthen or bridge over the pipe subway for permanent and construction access to the site.

Outcome N

of how the pipe subway will be crossed and likely long-term impacts of the crossings
- details for the proposed transport routes,

route options, lorry holding areas and the powers Thames Water is seeking to manage possible proposed changes to transport plans by contractors in the future will be required
- details of logistics and muck-away sites

are also required to fully consider any transport proposals. 17.5.75 Cumulative transport effects arising from other developments in the local area, including works proposed at Victoria Embankment, Chelsea Embankment and Blackfriars. Disruption to the use of the Thames Path caused by construction works or diversion. GLA 1 N

17.5.76

GLA, 9055

The work site that we propose for construction would require a temporary diversion to the Thames Path along the northern footway of the Victoria Embankment, as indicated in the site information paper. The diversion would ensure that a safe route along Victoria Embankment could remain open during construction. The detailed route would be agreed with the WCC and TfL. The proposed diversion would remain for the duration of the works, after which the current Thames Path route would be reinstated.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-19

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Ref 17.5.77

Objections, issues and concerns Construction traffic will cause traffic congestion, particularly on the A3211.

Respondent ID GLA

No. 1

Our response At this site we propose to use barges to transport the materials used to fill the cofferdam. We expect that this would reduce the number of lorry visits to/from this site by approximately 45 per cent. Road access to this site is proposed via the Victoria Embankment (A3211). The proposed construction access arrangements would maintain two-way traffic along Victoria Embankment (A3212) throughout construction by reducing road lane widths, as detailed in the site information paper. It is expected that at the peak of construction (year two), an average of 23 lorries would visit (travelling to and from) the site each working day, as indicated in the PEIR (volume 20, section 12). We are reviewing the proposed routes that construction traffic would use in our transport assessment that will also assess cumulative transport effects of traffic associated with other developments in the local area. The developments to be assessed will be agreed with TfL and local highways authorities. If the transport assessment identifies any likely significant effects arising from congestion we would develop mitigation measures to minimise any disruption. We are also developing a CoCP (a draft was provided as part of our phase two consultation), which will include a requirement for a Traffic management plan to ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled to minimise any potential likely significant effects on the road network including access to the local area, as well as setting out construction traffic routes, site access/egress points, signage and monitoring procedures.

Outcome N

17.5.78

Proposed site access is unsuitable.

LR13378

The proposed site access is illustrated in our site information N paper and a preliminary assessment of the likely significant transport effects is set out in our PEIR (volume 20, section 12). We believe that the site access is suitable and can accommodate the level of traffic anticipated at this site. We do not currently intend to close Victoria Embankment as it is a key element of the road network. The proposed construction access arrangements would maintain two-way traffic along Victoria Embankment (A3212) by reducing road lane widths, as detailed in the site information paper. Some temporary road closures would be required elsewhere during construction. The Traffic management plan that we are currently developing will set out details of the roads that would be closed and the process for notifying closures. Our transport assessment will also consider the likely significant effects of any closures during the construction period and identify any mitigation measures that would be required. We will work closely with the WCC and TfL in developing the proposals and would notify any affected parties. N

17.5.79

Proposed access route to the site will result in local road closures (Victoria Embankment (westbound)).

GLA

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-20

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Ref 17.5.80 17.5.81

Objections, issues and concerns Effect of construction traffic on road safety. Effect of construction traffic on the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and local residents due to narrow carriage widths on the Embankment.

Respondent ID GLA GLA

No. 1 1

Our response

Outcome

We would design site accesses and operate all of our N construction sites to ensure that they meet design, health N and safety standards. We are developing a CoCP (a draft of which was provided as part of our phase two consultation), which will include requirements for a Traffic management plan to ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled to minimise any potential likely significant effects on the road network, including access to the local area, as well as setting out construction traffic routes, site access/egress points, signage and monitoring procedures. The proposals will be subject to independent external review by TfL and the local highway authority to ensure proposed highway layouts and vehicle movement arrangements are as safe as possible. The impact of the temporary structure on navigation in the river is the subject of on-going studies and a navigational risk assessment, which will consider navigation of vessels from the nearby Embankment Pier. Where this is shown to have an adverse effect on navigational safety, we will amend our proposals or provide appropriate mitigation in consultation with the PLA. The impact of the structure on navigation in the river is the subject of on-going studies and a navigational risk assessment. Where this is shown to have an adverse effect on navigational safety, we will amend our proposals or provide appropriate mitigation in agreement with the PLA. We will review our proposals to moor a barge perpendicular to the tidal stream. N

17.5.82

Effect of transporting material by barge on river navigation and commercial river uses including river passenger services at Embankment Pier.

GLA

17.5.83

Effect of structures required to enable river PLA transport (eg cofferdams) on river navigation and commercial transport, including proposal to moor barges at right angles to the tidal stream is unacceptable in terms of navigational safety.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access 17.5.84 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access Table 17.5.25 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction Ref 17.5.85 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on mitigation, including effects on safety for road users. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response Outcome

We would design site accesses and operate all of our N construction sites to ensure that they meet design, health and safety standards. We are developing a CoCP (a draft of which was provided as part of our phase two consultation), which will include requirements for a Traffic management plan to ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled to minimise any potential likely significant effects on the road network including access to the local area, as well as setting out construction traffic routes, site access/egress points, signage and monitoring procedures. The proposals will be subject to independent external review by TfL and the local

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-21

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response highway authority to ensure proposed highway layouts and vehicle movement arrangements are as safe as possible. The Thames Path would be temporarily diverted via a safe alternative route along the northern footpath to Victoria Embankment (A3211. Our footpath diversions would be designed to meet all appropriate design and safety standards and would be agreed with TfL and the WCC. We will consider the demand for the existing coach parking and possible alternative locations as part of the Transport assessment that will be prepared for submission with our DCO application. We will discuss any alternative provision with TfL and the WCC and report our conclusions as part of the Transport assessment that will be submitted with our DCO application. We are undertaking fluvial modelling and preliminary findings have informed the design of the site. Further modelling will be used to refine the designs where appropriate, and will inform the Environmental statement that will be part of our DCO application. The modelling studies will also support agreements with owners of third party assets, where relevant. We are preparing a Navigational risk assessment as part of our DCO application, the approach to which is being discussed with the PLA. Preliminary discussions with the PLA have also informed the design of the site. We intend to use the river to bring in and take away materials used to fill the cofferdam, as detailed in our site information paper. However, it is not generally practical and cost-effective to transport all materials by barge so we would still need to transport some materials by road. At this site, use of barges would remove approximately 16,000 lorries from the road during the construction. We are considering opportunities to transport more materials from this site by barge. This matter will be the subject of targeted consultation for this site. We are preparing a Transport assessment that will be submitted as part of our DCO application. This will include a detailed analysis of potential access routes and an assessment of the likely significant effects of construction traffic on local roads, together with mitigation required to minimise disruption from site traffic. We will work closely with TfL, the WCC, local residents and other interested groups to minimise the effects of traffic movements to and from the site.

Outcome

17.5.86

Provide a suitable and safe Thames Path diversion with carefully designed pedestrian crossings and diversionary signage agreed with TfL. Make alternative car and coach parking provision.

GLA

17.5.87

GLA

17.5.88

Undertake fluvial modelling to identify potential effects of river transport and associated structures on river flows.

PLA

17.5.89

Undertake a navigational assessment to identify potential effects of river transport on river users and structures. Use the river to transport more/all construction materials and excavated material to avoid additional traffic on the road network.

PLA, 8853, LR9273

17.5.90

GLA, PLA, WCC, LR9236

17.5.91 17.5.92

Complete a transport assessment. Other transport and access mitigation suggestions, including: - existing highway capacity on A3211 Victoria Embankment should be maintained at all times. Where any lane or parking/loading capacity is required this should be a temporary arrangement and for as short a period as possible to minimise disruption to road users

GLA GLA

1 1

N N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-22

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns


- further details on the operations and

Respondent ID

No.

Our response

Outcome N

logistics of the site are required regarding implications for existing river use.

Water and flood risk


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to water and flood risk 17.5.93 17.5.94 17.5.95 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to water and flood risk during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to water and flood risk during construction. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk Table 17.5.26 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction Ref 17.5.96 Objections, issues and concerns Ensure design does not cause siltation, erosion or other hydrological impacts. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response We are carrying out fluvial modelling of the permanent and temporary foreshore works, which have been designed in such a way as to minimise scour. Where significant scour is predicted we would carry out preventative measures (such as placing riprap on the river bed), and in all locations the riverbed would be monitored and remedial works carried out if/as required. Riprap presents a change in habitat rather than a loss of habitat. This will be discussed in the Environmental statement to be submitted with our DCO application. Outcome C

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-23

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

17.6
17.6.1 17.6.2

Permanent design and appearance


This section sets out feedback comments received during phase two consultation relating to proposals for the permanent design and appearance of buildings and structures at Victoria Embankment Foreshore that are required for the operation of the tunnel when it is in use (the operational phase). During phase two consultation, respondents were asked to give their views on the identification of site specific issues that have influenced proposals for the permanent design of Victoria Embankment Foreshore (see question 5 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The first part of question 5 asked respondents to select agree, disagree or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in the table below. Table 17.6.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right issues that have influenced our permanent design for this site? (Q5) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 0 1 3 0 4 3 0 1 1 2 1 Yes No Dont know/unsure

17.6.3

As part of the phase two consultation, respondents were also asked to comment on proposals for the permanent design and appearance of Victoria Embankment Foreshore (see question 6 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The first part of question 6 asked respondents to select supportive, opposed or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in the table below. Table 17.6.2 Please give us your views about our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site (Q6) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 0 1 4 0 5 3 0 2 3 1 1 Supportive Opposed Dont know/unsure

17.6.4 17.6.5

The following sections set out the feedback comments received from respondents in connection with proposals for the permanent design and appearance of Victoria Embankment Foreshore. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments provided feedback to the first part of questions 5 and 6. Feedback comments are organised under the following sub-headings: supportive and neutral comments objections, issues and concerns design suggestions.

17.6.6

Where respondents commented on particular matters arising during the operational phase and the management of these effects (whether through design or by other means), these comments are reported in section 17.7.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-24

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Table 17.6.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Ref 17.6.7 17.6.8 17.6.9 Supportive and neutral comments The design/proposals are OK/fine/acceptable. The design/proposals are good. Support proposals because: - the strong orthogonal plan of the foreshore development is well judged in relation to the linearity of the Victoria Embankment. Its asymmetry lends particular interest when seen in views from the south. This approach could be mirrored on the downstream side to reduce its monolithic appearance in views from Hungerford Bridge. Canting the walls gives a welcome sense of strength and majesty; using the kiosks to help define the threshold into the space is particularly well conceived. Respondent ID (LR)CABE 7404 (LR)CABE No. 1 1 1 Our response Your comments are noted and welcomed.

17.6.10

Qualified support: EH - efforts have been made to minimise residual infrastructure requirements at this location. However, further design iterations are necessary before this site can be said to have been appropriately mitigated. Support for a specific design feature: - proposals to provide lighting at ground level to minimise light spill onto the River Thames and not detract from the night view of the row of festoon lighting from the south. Other supportive comment: you have to do what is necessary for the benefit of all concerned. WCC

17.6.11

17.6.12

7404

Your comments are noted.

Objections, issues and concerns Table 17.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Ref 17.6.13 Objections, issues and concerns Do not support the design, it is unduly bulky at present and the asymmetry does not help its appearance. Respondent ID EH No. 1 Our response We note your comments on the design of our proposed project. The design follows our project-wide principles and takes into account comments made at phase one consultation, on-going discussions with consultees and our design review with the Design Council CABE, which supported an orthogonal design for this site. Our Design C

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-25

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response development report (available as part of our phase two consultation) sets out the principles that have informed our design in more detail. We are considering our design for this site in light of feedback from phase two consultation. We note that the size of the site is largely determined by our infrastructure requirements, but we will consider whether we could reduce the apparent bulk of the project. Our proposals to revise the design of the works at this site will be the subject of targeted consultation. A preliminary assessment of likely significant townscape and C visual effects has been undertaken and is presented in the PEIR (volume 20, section 11). We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive townscape and visual effects assessment of the likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Our proposals to revise the design of the works at this site will be the subject of targeted consultation. Development of designs for this site have considered the C site's location within the setting of a number of listed buildings and the conservation area, as detailed within the Design development report and the Victoria Embankment Foreshore site information paper which were both made available at phase two consultation. An assessment of the impact of our proposals on the historic environment is being C undertaken as part of the environmental impact assessment process. Preliminary findings of our assessment were included in the PEIR (volume 20), which was made available at phase two consultation. An assessment of the likely significant effects on the historic environment is being completed as part of our environmental impact assessment. We are consulting with English Heritage as part of this process. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. You may also wish to refer to our response at paragraph 17.5.13. Our proposals to revise the design of the works at this site will be the subject of targeted consultation. As set out in our site information paper we are proposing to intercept the Regent Street CSO and connect to the Northern Low Level Sewer No.1 to divert flows to the main tunnel at this site. We believe that Victoria Embankment Foreshore should be our preferred site because use of the C

17.6.14

Effect of permanent design and layout on local views, specifically the foreground of view 17A.2 River Prospect: Golden Jubilee/Hungerford Footbridges: upstream, of the new revised London View Management Framework (July 2010).

WCC

17.6.15

Effect of the permanent design and layout on the conservation area. The site is within the Whitehall Conservation Area, which contains the Victoria Embankment Gardens, Whitehall Court, the National Liberal Club and Royal Air Force Memorial. Effect of permanent design and layout on listed building(s) and/or the setting of listed building(s). Severe truncation of the listed embankment wall introduces a very incongruous projecting element that harms the very strong linear character of the embankment wall and disrupts the rhythmic detailed design of this structure. This is contrary to design policies, and the asymmetrical design, as currently proposed, is unconvincing. A symmetrical design would better reflect other river projections in vicinity of the proposed worksite.

WCC

17.6.16

WCC

17.6.17

Size of structure(s) within the foreshore of EH the River Thames is too large/there should be no structures in the foreshore; need more assurance that such a substantial incursion into the river is justified.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-26

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response foreshore is preferable to the temporary loss of, and the potential permanent effects on, the Grade II listed Victoria Embankment Gardens. Our revised proposals for the design of this site will be the subject of targeted consultation. The impact of the permanent structure on navigation in the river is the subject of on-going studies and a navigational risk assessment, which will consider navigation of vessels from the nearby Embankment Pier. Where it is demonstrated that this would have an adverse effect on navigational safety, we will amend our proposals or provide appropriate mitigation in consultation with the PLA. Our revised proposals for the design of this site will be the subject of targeted consultation. We are developing our maintenance proposals for the site and will discuss them with the WCC. N

17.6.18

Effect of permanent design and layout on river navigation and commercial river users (Thames Clippers etc). Effect of permanent design and layout on river navigation and recreational river users.

8853

17.6.19

8853

17.6.20

Concerned about the on-going maintenance of permanent structures on the site; greater clarity as to which body will take responsibility for the maintenance and use of this site is required. Need more information on permanent design proposals.

EH

17.6.21

EH

A range of material was provided as part of our phase two C consultation to set out our proposals for this site. We are currently considering options for this site and anticipate targeted consultation to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on our revisions. Our revised proposals for the design of this site will be the subject of targeted consultation. Our phase two consultation material included a preliminary assessment of the likely significant archaeological effects as detailed in the PEIR (volume 20, section 7). Our preliminary assessment determined that the potential for archaeological remains in the channel would be low due to probable dredging, however there is high potential for palaeoenvironmental remains. The desk-based study of the site suggests that we do not anticipate finds of any buried heritage assets of very high significance that might merit a mitigation strategy of permanent preservation in situ. An assessment of the effects on the historic environment is being completed as part of our environmental impact assessment. We are consulting with English Heritage as part of this process. Our draft CoCP sets out a range of measures that would be adopted by our contractor in respect of archaeology and a full assessment of the likely significant effects of the scheme on the historic environment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be set out in our Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. As stated in our CoCP, we would put in place procedures to ensure that construction works are appropriately monitored in order to identify and record any N

17.6.22

General effect of the permanent design and layout on local heritage; the site is within an area of special archaeological priority.

WCC

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-27

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Ref 17.6.23

Objections, issues and concerns See no need for a park or public square on the river.

Respondent ID EH

No. 1

Our response archaeological finds. The Design Council CABE has commented that the location requires a design-led solution that respects and enhances the historic setting, and offers the opportunity for a new piece of destination public realm at which to pause and enjoy the views. We consider that creating a new, highquality public realm at this busy central London riverside location would provide additional views over the river, while relieving some of the demand for pavement space currently experienced in this location. The footbridge and the Thames Path riverside walk here are increasingly busy thoroughfares, both during the day and in the evening. They are full of movement and noise and do not encourage people to stop and enjoy the views. This site offers an opportunity to provide a calmer area, away from traffic, that would afford clear visual links to the river and allow greater appreciation of the river and the historic surroundings. N

Design suggestions
Table 17.6.5 Design suggestions Ref 17.6.24 Design suggestions Design should provide suitable/more/adequate landscaping and planting. Proposals should be in keeping with and blend into the character of the local area/minimise visual impact noting the civic environments and the setting of a World Heritage Site (WHS). Respondent ID LR9491 No. 1 Our response We are currently considering our design proposals for this site. Our revised proposals for the design of this site will be the subject of targeted consultation. Our proposals for the permanent layout and design of the site seek to respect the surroundings and setting of the historic environment, while being clearly distinguishable of its own merit, according to the recommendations of the Design Council CABE. Following discussions with the WCC and English Heritage, a modern interpretation of the form and materials characteristic of the local area is considered appropriate. The recent Golden Jubilee footbridges, the Whitehall/Northumberland Avenue/Trafalgar Square public realm improvements and nearby river piers provide local examples of how contemporary forms and high-quality modern materials can co-exist with more historic areas. The recently published London World Heritage Sites - Guidance on Settings will also be considered as part of the heritage assessment for this site. Our proposals to revise the design of the works at this site will be the subject of targeted consultation. Your comments are noted and will be taken into consideration in developing our proposals for this site. Our revised proposals for the design of this site will be the subject of targeted consultation. C

17.6.25

EH

17.6.26 17.6.27

Proposals should use high quality materials and finishes. Other design mitigation: some indication has been given to the after use of construction

WCC GLA

1 1

N N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-28

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Ref

Design suggestions sites, these aspects should be kept under review to reflect needs and opportunities as they appear on completion of works, which in some cases will be ten years from now. Design should include recreational facilities, including a small boat stop or ladder with vertical mooring rails in the wall. Stepping up the space towards the River Thames should lend added drama to visitors experience. Specific design amendments include: - cap main shaft below river bed and only bring smaller shafts to the surface - site access/cross-over to the permanent foreshore appears over-engineered considering the low level of proposed use - The improved Thames Path is re-instated and the additional public realm has a clear purpose reflecting its high-profile location - incorporate cycle facilities in the new area of public realm - ventilation columns should be designed to take account of the local townscape and character - sturgeon and festoon lighting on the Embankment Wall should be reinstated on the new river wall post construction - relocate the sturgeon lamp and the sphinx seat and the proposed location of the ventilation chimney - minimise light spill onto neighbouring buildings and the public road - resolution of ramps
- explore whether the space could host

Respondent ID

No.

17.6.28

8161

17.6.29

(LR)CABE

17.6.30

(LR)CABE, GLA, WCC, 8853, LR9491

Our response Future use and responsibility for the site will be subject to agreement between Thames Water and the WCC as a result of on-going discussions. Recreational facilities on the River Thames are not considered appropriate in this location, due to the relative narrowness of the river and the potential effect on river navigation by others. A solution that caps the main shaft below the river bed would not be appropriate as we would require access to the shaft and tunnel for future maintenance purposes. We do not propose to provide a dropped kerb to give maintenance access to the permanent structure. The extent of the site entrance shown on the engineering drawings at phase two consultation indicated the preliminary extent of strengthening works that may be required for maintenance vehicle access, rather than the extent of a dropped kerb. These extents will be revised following more detailed swept path analysis. The design of our site would not preclude the incorporation of future cycle facilities by other developers. We intend to incorporate the existing sturgeon and festoon lighting in the existing Embankment Wall.

N C

N C N

temporary works of public art that provide a vertical focal point. 17.6.31 Reduce the size of the structures in the foreshore of the River Thames. EA, WCC 2 We do not propose to reclaim more land from the foreshore than is reasonably required for our proposals. As set out in our site information paper, at this site we are proposing to make a connection to the Northern Low Level Sewer No. 1 to control flows from the Regent Street and Northumberland Street CSOs and divert these flows to the main tunnel. We C

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-29

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Ref

Design suggestions

Respondent ID

No.

Our response believe that Victoria Embankment Foreshore should be our preferred site because the use of the foreshore is preferable to the temporary loss of, and the potential permanent effects on, the Grade II listed Victoria Embankment Gardens. We have sought to rationalise our permanent works footprint in order to minimise the size of the structure in the foreshore and will continue to consider opportunities to further reduce the size of the permanent structure. Our revised proposals for the design of this site will be the subject of targeted consultation. We agree that our development should be environmentally friendly. We will consider incorporating a brown roof on the flat area of the ventilation building roof to encourage biodiversity. C

17.6.32

Designs should be environmentally friendly/sustainable.

LR9491

17.7
17.7.1 17.7.2

Management of operational effects


This section sets out feedback comments received during phase two consultation relating to the management of operational effects at Victoria Embankment Foreshore. This includes the identification of site specific issues associated with the site once it is operational and proposals for addressing these issues. During phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the correct key issues associated with Victoria Embankment Foreshore once the site is operational and the ways to address these issues (see questions 7a and 7b of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The first part of question 7a and 7b asked respondents to select agree, disagree or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in tables 17.7.1 and 17.7.2. Tables 17.7.3 to 17.7.16 detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments confirmed whether the right issues and the ways to address those issues had been identified. Table 17.7.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q7a) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 0 1 4 0 5 4 0 1 1 3 1 Yes No Dont know/unsure

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-30

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Table 17.7.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q7b) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total 17.7.3 Number of respondents Total 0 0 1 4 0 5 4 0 1 1 3 1 Yes No Dont know/unsure

The following sections set out the feedback comments received from respondents in connection with the identification of key issues associated with Victoria Embankment Foreshore once the tunnel is operational. Feedback comments are organised under common themes. The themes are: General themes: General feedback comments on the key issues General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues

Topic-based themes Air quality and odour Historic environment Land quality and contamination Lighting Natural environment (aquatic) Natural environment (terrestrial) Noise and vibration Open space and recreation Planning and development Socio-economic Structures and utilities Townscape and visual Transport and access Water and flood risk

General feedback comments on the identified key issues


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the identified key issues 17.7.4 17.7.5 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to general comments on the identified key issues during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to general comments on the identified key issues during operation.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-31

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues Table 17.7.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation Ref 17.7.6 Supportive and neutral comments Measures to address potential issues are satisfactory. Respondent ID 7404 No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted and welcomed.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues 17.7.7 No objections, issued or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation.

Air quality and odour


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour Table 17.7.4 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour during operation Ref 17.7.8 Supportive and neutral comments Proposals will ensure that odour is satisfactorily managed. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour Table 17.7.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during operation Ref 17.7.9 Objections, issues and concerns Effect of odour arising from operation of the tunnel. Respondent ID (LR)CCW No. 1 Our response Outcome

Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of N odour associated with operation of the tunnel are set out in our PEIR (volume 20, section 4), which concludes that when the tunnel is operational no significant effects are predicted in relation to odour. The ventilation facilities would be designed to minimise the release of untreated air from the tunnel system and approximately 99 per cent of the time during the average year, air released from the tunnel would be treated and would not have any odours. This arrangement meets the Environment Agencys odour criteria. When the tunnel is empty the ventilation system would be operated so as to maintain a pressure lower than atmospheric pressure, which would prevent air from leaving the tunnel. This would be achieved by extracting air at specific active ventilation facilities which are currently proposed at our sites at Acton Storm Tanks, Carnwath Road Riverside, Greenwich Pumping Station and Abbey Mills Pumping Station where the air would be treated before being released through a high ventilation column. When the tunnel fills with sewage the air path throughout the tunnel would gradually be lost and air would be displaced by the rising sewage levels. This air would pass through activated carbon filters where it would be treated before being released.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-32

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour 17.7.10 17.7.11 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation.

Historic environment
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment 17.7.12 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the historic environment during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment Table 17.7.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during operation Ref 17.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns Effect of scour on archaeology. Respondent ID EH No. 1 Our response Outcome

Our PEIR (volume 20, section 7) states that there would be C a possible operational effect on archaeological remains arising from possible changes in the rivers scouring patterns and consequent impacts on downstream archaeological remains. Potential impacts on the fluvial regime and any archaeological remains cannot be predicted at present. Hydrological modelling is being undertaken, which will provide further information on potential effects (if any). Any mitigation strategy would depend on the results of hydrological modelling, but could comprise a programme of archaeological excavation and recording (ie preservation by record) of any archaeological remains likely to be affected. The findings of the assessment will be presented in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment 17.7.14 17.7.15 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during operation.

Land quality and contamination


17.7.16 No feedback comments were received in relation to land quality and contamination during operation.

Lighting
17.7.17 No feedback comments were received in relation to lighting during operation.

Natural environment (aquatic)


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) 17.7.18 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during operation.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-33

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) Table 17.7.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during operation Ref 17.7.19 Objections, issues and concerns Effect on foreshore habitat(s) (although it is acknowledged that they are of poor species diversity) including impacts of relocating the Tattershall Castle and any dredging requirements. Respondent ID EA, LR9491 No. 2 Our response Outcome

Intercepting the CSO would improve water quality and the N improvements to the capacity of the sewerage system would result in far fewer low dissolved oxygen events and therefore fewer mass fish mortalities. As part of our PEIR (volume 20, section 5) we assessed the likely significant operational effects of the proposed development on aquatic ecology. The PEIR considered the effects on the foreshore and River Thames and concluded that the permanent structure would have a low negative impact given its small area and that improving water quality would be a positive effect of the project. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We are preparing a full aquatic ecology assessment for submission in the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application, which will also consider the likely significant effects of the permanent structure on river flow and fish movements. We have sought to reduce the amount of foreshore that would be lost while meeting our engineering and functional requirements. The loss of habitat in the foreshore contributes to an overall loss across the projects in-river sites.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) 17.7.20 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during operation Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic Table 17.7.8 Objections, issues and concerns f in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during operation Ref 17.7.21 17.7.22 Objections, issues and concerns Provision of compensation habitat, including refuges for fish and other species. Other natural environment mitigation; accumulative land-take of a series of structures along the River Thames, there should be considerations to secure significant positive gains for fish and other aquatic species. Respondent ID LR9491 LR9491 No. 1 1 Our response Outcome

Intercepting the CSO would improve water quality and the C improvements to the capacity of the sewerage system would result in far fewer low dissolved oxygen events and therefore C fewer mass fish mortalities. As part of our PEIR (volume 20, section 5) we assessed the likely significant operational effects of the proposed development on aquatic ecology. The PEIR considered the likely significant effects on the foreshore and River Thames and concluded that the permanent structure would have a low negative impact given its small area and that improving water quality would be a positive effect of the scheme. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We are preparing a full aquatic ecology assessment for submission in the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application, which will also consider the likely significant effects on river flow and fish movements from the permanent

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-34

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response structure. We have sought to reduce the amount of foreshore that would be lost while meeting our engineering and functional requirements. The loss of habitat in the foreshore contributes to an overall loss across the projects in-river sites. We are considering compensation for the loss of habitat at a project wide level and the ecological improvement opportunities for mitigation and enhancement will be set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.

Outcome

Natural environment (terrestrial)


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 17.7.9 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Ref 17.7.23 Supportive and neutral comments Support efforts to minimise the long-term impacts to biodiversity and secure improvements. Respondent ID LR9491 No. 1 Our response Your comments are noted and welcomed.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) 17.7.24 17.7.25 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 17.7.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Ref 17.7.26 17.7.27 Objections, issues and concerns Provide compensation habitat; put nesting and roosting boxes up. Maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity through an effective mitigation package. Respondent ID 7404 LR9491 No. 1 1 Our response As stated in para 6.1.3 of our PEIR (volume 20, section 6), significant operational effects on terrestrial ecology as a result of the tunnel operation and the infrequent maintenance visits are not anticipated therefore this has not been assessed. A full assessment will be presented in our Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. This will consider the likely significant effects of the development based on a methodology set out in our PEIR. All permanent works would be located within the defined site boundary. We would require all lighting to be arranged to prevent glare and reduce light spill into surrounding properties and public roads. Any flood lighting should be fixed horizontally to avoid sky glow and prevent glare to surrounding properties. Outcome N N

17.7.28

Locate permanent works within the site to avoid sensitive and designated areas.

LR9491

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-35

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Noise and vibration


17.7.29 No feedback comments were received in relation to noise and vibration during operation.

Open space and recreation


17.7.30 No feedback comments were received in relation to open space and recreation during operation.

Planning and development


17.7.31 No feedback comments were received in relation to planning and development during operation.

Socio-economic
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects Table 17.7.11 Supportive and neutral feedback comments relating to socio-economic effects during operation Ref 17.7.32 Supportive and neutral comments No objection to relocating the Tattershall Castle. Respondent ID EH No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects Table 17.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during operation Ref 17.7.33 17.7.34 17.7.35 Objections, issues and concerns Permanent business relocation of the Tattershall Castle and associated effects. Permanent business relocation and associated effects. Detrimental effect on business operations; the Tattershall Castle. Respondent ID EH, WCC, 9432LO 9432LO, LR13378 9432LO No. 3 2 1 Our response The location of our permanent structure means that the Tattershall Castle would need to move from her current location. We have sought to permanently relocate the vessel as close as possible to the existing location to minimise impact on the business. In the long-term, the creation of a new area of open space by the river could attract visitors to the area, which may be beneficial to the Tattershall Castles business operations. Outcome N N N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects 17.7.36 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects Table 17.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during operation Ref 17.7.37 Objections, issues and concerns Provide alternative business premises; the Tattershall Castle. Respondent ID GLA No. 3 Our response Our site information paper identifies a nearby potential permanent relocation site to the south, which would require a single move in order to minimise disruption. We will continue to discuss options for a new mooring with the owner, operator and the PLA. Outcome N

Structures and utilities


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relations to structures and utilities 17.7.38 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to structures and utilities during operation.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-36

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities Table 17.7.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities issues during operation Ref 17.7.39 Objections, issues and concerns Would communications cables be connected in the pipe subway? Respondent ID WCC No. 1 Our response We envisage that this would be likely; however we propose to undertake advance discussions with the WCC on the principle and the design. Outcome C

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities 17.7.40 17.7.41 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities issues during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities issues during operation.

Townscape and visual


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to townscape and visual effects 17.7.42 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to townscape and visual effects during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects Table 17.7.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during operation Ref 17.7.43 Objections, issues and concerns Effect on river views including the effect of the proposed re-location of the Tattershall Castle. Respondent ID EH No. 1 Our response Outcome

We have undertaken a preliminary assessment of likely N significant townscape and visual effects, which is contained in the PEIR (volume 20, section 11). We are developing this further with a townscape and visual impact assessment as part of the environmental impact assessment that will be submitted with our DCO application. This will identify any likely significant effects of our proposed operational development, and any mitigation required to address such effects. We recognise that the value of the townscape at this site is high and is subject to a number of policy designations. We intend that the Tattershall Castle would be permanently relocated as near to the current location as possible in order to minimise the potential effects on local river views.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual 17.7.44 17.7.45 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual No objections, issues concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual during operation.

Transport and access


17.7.46 No feedback comments were received in relation to transport and access during operation.

Water and flood risk


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to water and flood risk 17.7.47 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to water and flood risk during operation

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-37

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk 17.7.48 17.7.49 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to water and flood risk during operation Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address water and flood risk during operation Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk Table 17.7.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during operation Ref 17.7.50 Objections, issues and concerns Ensure design does not cause siltation, erosion or other hydrological impacts. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response We are carrying out fluvial modelling of the temporary foreshore works to establish what likely significant effects the development would have on the river, and will discuss the findings with the PLA and the Environment Agency. We are also undertaking scour modelling. Our design would incorporate mitigation measures in order to manage any permanent effects of our works on the river. C

17.8
17.8.1 17.8.2

Our view of the way forward


We received a range of feedback on our proposals for this site, including supportive and neutral comments and objections, issues and concerns. We took all comments received into account in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008. In light of the feedback that we received, we believe that no new information has been highlighted that would change the conclusions of our site selection process to date. Victoria Embankment Foreshore therefore remains our preferred site to intercept the Regent Street CSO and connect the Northern Low Level Sewer No.1 to the main tunnel. Additionally, no new information or issues have been identified that would fundamentally change our proposals for this site. Therefore we will continue to develop the proposals for this site that we published at phase two consultation. The feedback we received included detailed comments on the construction and operational effects of the proposed development and the measures we propose to reduce and manage those effects. Detailed comments were also made on our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site. Having regard to the feedback received, we will continue to refine our detailed proposals for this site to improve the design and reduce the impacts on the local community and environment. We are currently considering the following changes to the layout and/or appearance of our proposals: amendments to the layout and shape of our permanent structures to reduce their footprint and visual bulk in the river, improve their relationship with the listed embankment wall and reduce the effect on views along the river towards the world heritage site, and increased use of the river to transport shaft excavated materials to reduce lorry movements on local roads reviewing the method for constructing the cofferdam

17.8.3

17.8.4

the orientation of the moored barge to address navigational safety. In our SOCC we recognised that we may need to amend our scheme following phase two consultation and that if changes came forward we would consider whether targeted consultation is appropriate. We consider that the degree of change in relation to this site would affect the nature of the comments received during phase two consultation as there are a range of protected heritage assets nearby which may be affected by our proposals, including Victoria Embankment, which is a listed structure. On that basis, a round of targeted consultation on our revised proposals for this site will begin on 6 June 2012 and close on 4 July 2012. Any comments received in response to our targeted consultation will be taken into account in preparing our application for a development consent order. We intend to publicise our proposed application in accordance with Section 48 of the Planning Act 2008 later in 2012. Full details of our proposed scheme will be set out in our DCO application and the accompanying documents.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

17-38