You are on page 1of 43

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

Supplementary report on phase two consultation


Chapter 19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Thames Tunnel Supplementary report on phase two consultation


List of contents Page number 19 Shad Thames Pumping Station ................................................................. 19-1 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.6 19.7 19.8 Introduction ......................................................................................... 19-1 Number of respondents ...................................................................... 19-1 Site selection ...................................................................................... 19-2 Alternative sites .................................................................................. 19-5 Management of construction works .................................................... 19-6 Permanent design and appearance .................................................. 19-25 Management of operational effects .................................................. 19-28 Our view of the way forward ............................................................. 19-38

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

List of tables Page number Table 19.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on Shad Thames Pumping Station ............................................................................. 19-1 Table 19.3.1 Views on whether Shad Thames Pumping Station should be our preferred site (Q2) .......................................................................... 19-2 Table 19.3.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the selection of our preferred site .................................................................................. 19-2 Table 19.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the selection of our preferred site .................................................................................. 19-3 Table 19.3.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites ...... 19-5 Table 19.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to Shad Thames Pumping Station ...... 19-5 Table 19.4.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to alternative sites .... 19-6 Table 19.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q4a) ......................................................... 19-7 Table 19.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q4b)..................................................................... 19-7 Table 19.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction ................ 19-8 Table 19.5.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during construction ............................................................... 19-8 Table 19.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction .................................................................................... 19-9 Table 19.5.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme ..................................................... 19-10 Table 19.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of construction working hours and programme ............................................................................ 19-11 Table 19.5.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during construction .................................................. 19-11 Table 19.5.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on historic environment during construction .................................................................................. 19-12 Table 19.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination during construction ................................................ 19-13 Table 19.5.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination during construction ....................................................................... 19-13 Table 19.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction ................................ 19-14

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Table 19.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction ..................................................... 19-15 Table 19.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration issues during construction ............................................................ 19-15 Table 19.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction .................................................................................. 19-16 Table 19.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during construction............................................................ 19-17 Table 19.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during construction 19-18 Table 19.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during construction ........................................................... 19-19 Table 19.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during construction .................................................................................. 19-20 Table 19.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction ........................................................... 19-21 Table 19.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction .................................................................................. 19-23 Table 19.5.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during construction................................................................. 19-24 Table 19.6.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right issues that have influenced our permanent design for this site? (Q5) ..................... 19-25 Table 19.6.2 Please give us your views about our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site (Q6) ....................................... 19-25 Table 19.6.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site ............................................... 19-26 Table 19.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site ............................................... 19-26 Table 19.6.5 Design suggestions ...................................................................... 19-27 Table 19.7.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q7a) ................................................ 19-28 Table 19.7.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q7b)................................................................... 19-29 Table 19.7.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues during operation .......................................................... 19-29 Table 19.7.4 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation .................. 19-30

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Table 19.7.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation .................. 19-30 Table 19.7.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during operation ................................................................. 19-30 Table 19.7.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation ...................................................................................... 19-31 Table 19.7.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during operation ...................................................................................... 19-31 Table 19.7.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination during operation .................................................... 19-32 Table 19.7.10 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation..................................... 19-32 Table 19.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation ......................................................... 19-33 Table 19.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during operation ............................................................. 19-33 Table 19.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during operation ................................................................ 19-34 Table 19.7.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during operation..... 19-34 Table 19.7.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during operation................................................................ 19-34 Table 19.7.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during operation ...................................................................................... 19-35 Table 19.7.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on townscape and visual during operation ...................................................................................... 19-36 Table 19.7.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during operation ............................................................... 19-37 Table 19.7.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during operation ...................................................................................... 19-37 Table 19.7.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during operation ........................................................................... 19-37 Table 19.7.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during operation ...................................................................................... 19-38

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

19
19.1
19.1.1 19.1.2

Shad Thames Pumping Station


Introduction
This chapter covers the feedback comments received during phase two consultation regarding our preferred site Shad Thames Pumping Station. This site would control the existing combined sewer overflow (CSO), known as the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO, which would not be intercepted by the main tunnel. At phase one consultation, St Johns playground fronting Druid Street was presented as our preferred site to connect the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO to the main tunnel. However, further technical work has established that there is no longer a need to connect the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO to the main tunnel. Instead we propose to manage storm flows by utilising existing storage in the sewers upstream of the pumping station and implementing works at Shad Thames Pumping Station to prevent it from pumping flows from the CSO into the River Thames. The site at Druid Street is therefore no longer required and works are instead proposed at the Shad Thames Pumping Station and Maguire Street, as presented at phase two consultation. For further information regarding the proposals for this site at phase two consultation, refer to the Shad Thames Pumping Station site information paper.

Structure of this chapter


19.1.3 This chapter is organised as listed below, which reflects the structure of the phase two consultation feedback form: section 19.2 Number of respondents section 19.3 Site selection section 19.4 Alternative sites section 19.5 Management of construction works section 19.6 Permanent design and appearance section 19.7 Management of operational effects section 19.8 Our view of the way forward. In sections 19.3 to 19.7 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: 19.1.5 19.1.6 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.

19.1.4

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.

19.2
19.2.1

Number of respondents
A total of 37 respondents provided feedback on Shad Thames Pumping Station, of which eight were received after the close of phase two consultation. Table 19.2.1 sets out the different groups who provided feedback for this site. Table 19.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on Shad Thames Pumping Station Statutory consultees 3 respondents - Design Council CABE (CABE) - English Heritage (EH) - Greater London Authority (GLA) Local authorities 1 respondent - London Borough of Southwark (LBS) Landowners 3 respondents Community consultees 30 respondents Petitions 0 petitions

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

19-1

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

19.2.2

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

19.3
19.3.1

Site selection
A series of sites is required in order to build and operate the Thames Tunnel project. At phase one consultation, we identified Druid Street as our preferred site to intercept the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO according to our site selection process. 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.

19.3.2

19.3.3

19.3.4

Since phase one consultation, we have undertaken scheme development work that has shown that by carrying out modifications and upgrades to Shad Thames Pumping Station, we do not need to intercept the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO and connect it to the main tunnel. Therefore we have ceased our search for a suitable site to intercept the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO and propose to use Shad Thames Pumping Station to undertake modification and upgrade works. In this section, we set out the feedback comments received in relation to Shad Thames Pumping Station, together with our responses. Where appropriate, we have also identified further work that we have undertaken in relation to this 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 Y of the Design development report and in our PEIR (volume 2). Where respondents have commented on matters in relation to management of construction works, permanent design and appearance or the management of operational effects at Shad Thames Pumping Station, these comments are reported in sections 4.5 to 4.7.

Number of respondents
19.3.5 During phase two consultation, respondents were asked to comment on the decision to use Shad Thames Pumping Station to control the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO (see question 2 of the phase two feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main Report). Table 19.3.1 sets out details of the different groups who responded and were asked to select supportive, opposed/concerned or dont know/unsure. Tables 19.3.2 and 19.3.3 then detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments selected supportive, opposed/concerned or dont know/unsure. Table 19.3.1 Views on whether Shad Thames Pumping Station should be our preferred site (Q2) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total Number of respondents Total 0 1 2 22 0 25 8 11 6 8 1 - LBS 1 9 1 5 Supportive Opposed/concerned Dont know/unsure

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to our preferred site Table 19.3.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the selection of our preferred site Ref 19.3.6 19.3.7 Supportive and neutral comments Support the use of the site. Support the changes to the proposed use of the preferred site since phase one Respondent ID EH, 8753, 8813 7767, 8753, LR9447 No. 3 3 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-2

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Ref

Supportive and neutral comments consultation - specifically that they address the CSO issue without the need for the tunnel. Support the identification of a new site since phase one consultation/ Shad Thames Pumping Station is more suitable than the site put forward at phase one consultation; in particular it avoids significant archaeological impacts at Druid Street. Thames Water has taken objections raised at phase one consultation into account in site selection. The site is currently vacant/derelict/available for redevelopment. Qualified support for our chosen site included: - subject to the Mayor of London being reassured as to the number of expected spills at this CSO
-

Respondent ID

No.

Our response

19.3.8

EH, GLA, 8306, 8673, 9063, 9067, 9395, 9475, LR9315, LR9447

10

19.3.9

LR8975, LR9315, LR9447

Your comment is noted. We have considered the comments received at phase one consultation and, where possible, have incorporated them into the revised proposals we presented at phase two consultation. The proposed works would be within our existing operational pumping station with some works in Maguire Street adjacent to the site. We can confirm that once the modifications at Shad Thames Pumping Station have been implemented, the average number of spills per year would reduce to four in a typical year.

19.3.10 19.3.11

8813 GLA, LR13386LO, 9096

1 3

reassurance that, there will be no negative outcomes as a result of not connecting to the main tunnel, eg worse sewage control, odour and contamination minimise disruption for local residents.

Undertaking these modifications would not exacerbate the current situation.

We note that the pumping station is currently an operational site. A full assessment of the effects of the scheme on a range of topics, including noise and vibration; air quality (including dust emissions) and odour; and transport, based on a methodology that has been agreed with the LBS will be provided with the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Where effects are identified we would put in place mitigation measures, in addition to the measures set out in our draft CoCP. We are also preparing a Health impact assessment that will examine the effects of the proposed development on human health and well-being and possible effects in the population. The findings of this study will inform the design for this site, as well as mitigation measures to address any significant effects.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to our preferred site Table 19.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the selection of our preferred site Ref 19.3.1 Objections, issues and concerns The preferred site put forward at phase one consultation, Druid Street, is more suitable because the new site location and strategy appears to downgrade the usefulness of the CSO system in this area, with the result that Respondent ID 7536 No. 1 Our response Since phase one consultation, our proposals in relation to the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO have changed. Instead of intercepting the CSO at Druid Street and connecting it to the main tunnel as proposed at phase one consultation, we now propose to manage storm flows by utilising existing storage in the sewers upstream of the pumping

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-3

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns more sewage overflows will occur into the Thames than at Druid Street. Reasons for changing the proposals in relation to the interception of the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO are unclear. Site selection should avoid sites in residential and/or densely populated areas. Impact on residential amenity should be considered as part of the site selection process. The scale of effects on the local area and community resulting from the selection of this site is unacceptable/has not been properly considered.

Respondent ID

No.

19.3.2

7598

19.3.3 19.3.4

7767, 8198 (LR)LBS

2 1

19.3.5

8650

Our response station and undertaking works at Shad Thames Pumping Station to prevent it from pumping flows from the CSO into the River Thames. Works at Shad Thames Pumping Station would include modifications to the pumps and internal pipe work, demolition of a building, construction of a new building to house electrical equipment, and modifications to the existing sewers outside the pumping station. The proposed works would be smaller scale and take less time than those required to intercept the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO, as proposed at phase one consultation. Overall, our new proposal would result in less disruption to the community in this area. We can confirm that once the modifications at Shad Thames Pumping Station have been implemented, the average number of spills would be reduced to four in a typical year. These modifications would not exacerbate the current situation. A full assessment of the likely significant effects of the proposals on a range of topics, including noise and vibration; air quality (including dust emissions) and odour; and transport, based on a methodology that has been agreed with the LBS, will be provided with the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Where effects are identified we would put in place mitigation measures, in addition to those set out in our draft CoCP. We are also preparing a Health impact assessment that will examine the effects of the proposed development on human health and well-being and possible effects in the population. The findings of this study will inform the design for this site as well as mitigation measures to address any significant effects. Refer to paragraph 2.2.32 for our response to this feedback comment.

19.3.6

Disagree with/not commenting on site selection due to wider objections to the proposed solution and/or the need for the project. Need more information in order to comment on site selection.

8002LO, 9395, 9475

19.3.7

8003LO, 9096

Instead of intercepting the flows from the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO we now propose to manage the storm flows by utilising existing storage in the sewers upstream of the pumping station and undertaking works at the Shad Thames Pumping Station to prevent it from pumping flows from the CSO into the River Thames. As we no longer propose to intercept the Shad Thames CSO and connect it to the main tunnel and propose instead to modify the existing sewer network, we assessed this worksite in the PEIR (volume 2) under Other works. Further information will be made available in the environmental impact assessment, which will include a further assessment and recommend any necessary mitigation measures in respect of residential and other local impacts. It is not possible to relocate the proposals at Shad Thames Pumping Station to Chambers Wharf because this station pumps flows from the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO into the River Thames. The pumping station therefore needs to be located along the line of the sewer, as close to the river as possible.

19.3.8

Other concerns, issues and objections included: - query whether there is an opportunity to relocate this pumping station to Chambers Wharf and integrate it with the

8198, 9096, 9387

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-4

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns work there, thereby minimising disruption


-

Respondent ID

No.

Our response We can confirm that we have employed experts in this field to advise us and assess our proposals. Since phase one consultation, further monitoring, modelling and other information on the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO has become available, which has informed further work that has shown that discharges from the CSO can be addressed through modifications to Shad Thames Pumping Station.

hope and expect that specialists/best-infield are advising on all aspects of the project engineering assessment appears poor, given the major changes made such as at Druid Street.

Shortlisted sites
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to shortlisted sites 19.3.9 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the shortlisted sites. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites Table 19.3.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites Ref 19.3.10 Objections, issues and concerns Object to the inclusion or referencing of a shortlisted site as a possible alternative to the preferred site. Use of Druid Street would result in loss of public open space and play space, and impact on amenity, archaeology, and enjoyment of open space. Respondent ID (LR)LBS No. 1 Our response Druid Street was not included as a shortlisted site in phase two consultation because we now propose to manage the storm flows from this CSO by modifying the existing sewer system. This means we no longer need a construction site to intercept this CSO. As set out in the Shad Thames Pumping Station site information paper, we have chosen the pumping station to control the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO and our proposed works would mainly be undertaken within this site..

19.4
19.4.1

Alternative sites
During phase two consultation, respondents were invited to suggest alternative sites that they thought should be used to control the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO instead of Shad Thames Pumping Station (see question 3 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The following sites were put forward as possible alternatives: Table 19.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to Shad Thames Pumping Station Ref 19.4.2 Alternative site suggestions Druid Street. Reasons The CSO system is more efficient at this site. Shad Thames is the cheaper alternative but not necessarily the best one. Respondent ID 8003LO, 7536, 8655 No. 3 Our response Druid Street was not included as a shortlisted site in our phase two consultation because we now propose to manage the storm flows from this CSO by modifying the existing sewer system. This means we no longer need a construction site to intercept this sewer. As set out in the Shad Thames Pumping Station site information paper, we have chosen the pumping station to control the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO and our proposed works would mainly be undertaken within this site. The proposed works to control the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO would avoid the need for the larger scale works suggested here and

Shortlisted sites

Other sites 19.4.3 River bed alongside the river walk. Thames Water should connect a rising main to the tunnel at Chambers 8002LO 1

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-5

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Ref

Alternative site suggestions

Reasons Respondent ID Wharf via the river bed, which would avoid major land-based work. It would also be cheaper because the same pumps and pipes could be modified to connect to the new rising main. A heavy duty plastic pipe laid in the river bed would cause no environmental effects and would be fully protected from erosion and scour. It is more suitable since it would be possible to integrate with other works required for the project, therefore minimising disruption during construction. 8198

No.

19.4.4

Chambers Wharf.

Our response thereby minimise the effects on the community and the River Thames. The heavy duty plastic pipe suggested is unlikely to be effective or practicable for a number of reasons such as the size of pipe that would be required and the need to connect this pipe to the main tunnel, which would be approximately 57m below the River Thames at this point. It is not possible to relocate the proposals at Shad Thames Pumping Station to Chambers Wharf because this station pumps flows from the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO to the River Thames. The pumping station therefore needs to be located along the line of the sewer as close to the river as possible.

19.4.5

Respondents also made the following comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites Supportive and neutral feedback comments Table 19.4.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to alternative sites Ref 19.4.6 Supportive and neutral 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 19.4.7 No objections, issues and concerns were raised in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites.

19.5
19.5.1 19.5.2

Management of construction works


This section sets out comments received during phase two consultation in relation to the management of construction works at Shad Thames Pumping Station. This includes the identification of site specific issues affecting construction activities and proposals to address the effects on these issues. During phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with Shad Thames Pumping Station during construction and the ways to address these issues (see questions 4a and 4b of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The first part of question 4a and 4b asked respondents to select agree, disagree or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in tables 19.5.1 and 19.5.2. Tables 19.5.3 to 19.5.22 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.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-6

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Table 19.5.1 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 12 0 13 8 3 2 8 1 2 2 Yes No Dont know/unsure

Table 19.5.2 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 19.5.3 Number of respondents Total 0 0 2 12 0 14 4 5 5 4 1 4 1 4 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 Shad Thames Pumping Station during construction and our proposals to address these issues. Feedback comments are organised under common themes. The themes are: General themes: General feedback comments on key issues General feedback comments measures to address the key issues

Topic-based themes 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

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-7

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

General feedback comments on the identified key issues


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the identified key issues 19.5.4 19.5.5 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to general feedback 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 feedback comments on the identified key issues during construction.

General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues 19.5.6 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to general feedback comments on the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues Table 19.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction Ref 19.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns Construction impacts must be minimised at every stage of construction. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response We have sought to avoid or eliminate potential likely significant effects wherever possible, by developing robust technical solutions to potential issues such as odour, and through our proposals for the permanent site design and layout. We are also developing a CoCP that will set out how we would manage our construction sites in order to minimise disruption to nearby communities. Measures proposed to address potential likely significant effects are being further developed and considered as part of the environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Outcome N

Air quality and odour


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation air quality and odour 19.5.8 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to air quality and odour during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation air quality and odour Table 19.5.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during construction Ref 19.5.9 19.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns Dust and dirt arising from construction activities. General effect of construction activities on air quality. Respondent ID 7808 (LR)LBS No. 1 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 likely significant effects of dust from construction activities and measures 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 draft CoCP confirms that an Air management plan will be prepared and implemented for each site to control dust emissions, and proposed Outcome N N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-8

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response techniques would be in line with best practice guidelines. Further assessment will be undertaken as part of our ongoing environmental impact assessment work and this will be reported in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application, which will include dispersion modelling. Dispersion modelling will assess the potential impacts of the construction phase at all proposed sites for the relevant short- and long-term NO2 and PM10 air quality objectives.

Outcome

19.5.11 19.5.12

Effect of odour arising from construction activities. Effect of odour on residential amenity.

7013 7013

1 1

We do not anticipate that the construction works would give N rise to any significant odour effects. The majority of our proposed works would be located within the existing N pumping station building and the duration would be relatively short similar to those normally undertaken by Thames Water when maintaining and repairing sewers. We would therefore be able to put appropriate measures in place to minimise any odours resulting from our proposed works. Our draft CoCP confirms that an Air management plan would be prepared and implemented for each site, and proposed techniques would be in line with best practice guidelines. A full assessment of potential 'pollution' will be presented in the Environmental statement that we will submit with our DCO application. We have also produced a draft CoCP that sets out measures for managing our works, including sections on noise and vibration, and air quality, 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. Our compliance with the applicable regulatory regime would be monitored by the LBS. N

19.5.13

General air pollution effects arising from construction activities.

8297, 8650

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour 19.5.14 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour Table 19.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction Ref 19.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on air quality and odour mitigation. Respondent ID 7808 No. 1 Our response Our preliminary environmental assessment identified that through the implementation of the CoCP no specific additional mitigation measures would be required at this site for air quality, odour or dust issues. We would require our contractor to comply with the CoCP in the construction contract. We are undertaking an environmental impact Outcome N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-9

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of the likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our application. We can confirm that an assessment of the likely significant effects on air quality and odour is being completed as part of our environmental impact assessment. Preliminary findings were published in our PEIR (volume 2) at phase two consultation. We are consulting with local authority environmental health officers as part of the process and have agreed the methodology with the LBS. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. We 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. We will continue to liaise with the LBS in respect of air quality monitoring and will consider the feasibility of a working group.

Outcome

19.5.16

Undertake an environmental impact assessment including air quality assessment.

(LR)LBS

19.5.17

Other air quality and odour mitigation, included the GLA and London Council's Best Practice Guidance (BPG) The control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition should be implemented
- S106 to require baseline air quality

GLA, (LR)LBS

monitoring and working group.

Construction working hours and programme


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction working hours and programme 19.5.18 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to construction working hours and programme. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the construction working hours and programme Table 19.5.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme Ref 19.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns The construction programme is too long/concerned about the duration of construction. Respondent ID 8650 No. 1 Our response The programming of works at all sites would be configured to minimise the duration of works and associated disruption to the local area where possible. The length of the construction period in the consultation documents comes from the PEIR and we expect that in many cases there would be periods during which there would be no or less intensive activity on some sites. Outcome N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-10

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response Outcome The proposed construction period for the works at this site has been significantly reduced from our proposal to intercept the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO at phase one consultation, and has been minimised as far as possible. At most of our sites we plan to carry out the majority of works within standard working hours, which are 8am-6pm weekdays, and 8am-1pm Saturdays. Work would not normally be undertaken on a bank holiday unless there is a specific reason - such as delivering abnormal, large and heavy loads at times when there is not much traffic, or during continuous tunnelling periods. Working hours in addition to the standard working hours would be agreed with the LBS and we would notify the local residents beforehand. N

19.5.20

No weekend working.

LR9122

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of construction working hours and programme 19.5.21 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of construction working hours programme. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of the construction programme Table 19.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of construction working hours and programme Ref 19.5.22 Objections, issues and concerns Should restrict demolition work to between the months of September and March so that Wheat Wharf residents can use their balconies during the summer. Respondent ID 7808 No. 1 Our response Outcome

Your comments are noted. We will consider whether it would C be possible to carry out the demolition work between September and March.

Construction site design and layout


19.5.23 No feedback comments were received in relation to construction site design and layout.

Historic environment
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment 19.5.24 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the historic environment during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment Table 19.5.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during construction Ref 19.5.25 19.5.26 Objections, issues and concerns Effect of construction activities on listed building(s) or structure(s). Respondent ID (LR)LBS, 7808 No. 2 1 Our response Wheat Wharf is located to the north of the pumping station site and is listed as Grade II. We are undertaking a historic environment assessment that will assess likely significant effects on Wheat Wharf, as part of our environmental impact assessment and heritage assessment. This will identify any likely significant effects during construction and any mitigation to address adverse effects. Our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) indicates that works close to listed buildings would be undertaken in accordance with all required consents and Outcome N N

Effect of construction activities on the setting (LR)LBS of locally listed buildings.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-11

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response licences 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 local planning authority prior to undertaking works.

Outcome

19.5.27

Effect of construction activities on archaeology.

(LR)LBS

An assessment of the likely significant effects on the historic N environment is being completed as part of our environmental impact and heritage assessments. We are consulting with English Heritage and the LBS 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, including procedures to ensure that construction works would be appropriately monitored to identify and record any archaeological finds. A full assessment of the effects on the historic environment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be set out in our Environmental statement and Heritage 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 19.5.28 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment Table 19.5.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on historic environment during construction Ref 19.5.29 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on mitigation, including the requirement for suitable access for archaeologists to excavate and record archaeological issues. Respondent ID EH, (LR)LBS No. 2 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 in respect of likely significant effects, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Additionally, our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) sets out a range of measures to safeguard the historic environment during construction. Such measures include confirmation that works close to listed buildings would be undertaken in accordance with all requirements set out in the DCO and that protection measures, as required, would be put in place at the start of the works. As set out in our draft CoCP, we would put procedures in place to ensure that construction works would be appropriately monitored to identify and record any archaeological finds. We would also notify English Heritage and the LBS prior to undertaking works and would continue to engage with them closely on the planning of the works. Your comments are noted we will continue to consult with N

19.5.30

The LBSs archaeologist should be

EH

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-12

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns consulted in respect of archaeological impacts.

Respondent ID

No.

Our response the LBS as our proposals develop.

Outcome

Land quality and contamination


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to land quality and contamination 19.5.31 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to land quality and contamination during construction. Objections, issues and concerns Table 19.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination during construction Ref 19.5.32 19.5.33 Objections, issues and concerns Potential for pollution incidents (such as sewage leaks) during construction. Potential for hazardous substances within the site boundary including asbestos. Respondent ID 7013 7808 No. 1 1 Our response The Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application will include a section on land quality. This will take comments and information regarding the previous use of the site and the potential for contamination into account in developing a methodology for further ground investigations. Our methodology would be agreed in advance with the LBS and the Environment Agency. If appropriate, further ground investigations would be undertaken prior to construction in order to identify any sources of contamination. Our Environmental statement will set out any recommendations for mitigation, in line with our CoCP. Our draft CoCP sets out how we would address any identified contamination during construction, in agreement with the regulator, in order to remediate contamination and avoid exposing sensitive environmental receptors. Outcome N N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination 19.5.34 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination Table 19.5.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination during construction Ref 19.5.35 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on mitigation, in particular details of procedures for dealing with any asbestos identified at the pumping station. Respondent ID 7808 No. 1 Our response Outcome

Our draft CoCP sets out a series of objectives and N measures that would be applied throughout the construction period in order to: - set out standards and procedures for managing and mitigating the impact of site activities during construction - maintain satisfactory levels of environmental protection - limit disturbance from construction activities and assure all stakeholders that all construction impacts would be managed appropriately. The land quality (9), the air quality (7), water resources (8) and waste management and resource use (10) sections of the draft CoCP outline the legislation, policy and measures

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-13

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response Outcome the contractor undertaking the work would be required to follow. This includes a section on management of asbestos waste. Application of the approaches and measures outlined in the draft CoCP would ensure that contamination would not pose a risk to human health during construction, either to those undertaking the work or to local residents. Section 4 of the draft CoCP outlines the general way in which sites would be operated, including avoiding and responding to pollution incidents. Our contractor would be required to comply with the CoCP, which will be submitted with our DCO application.

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

Natural environment (aquatic)


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

Natural environment (terrestrial)


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) 19.5.38 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 19.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Ref 19.5.39 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on the effect of construction activities on the natural environment. Respondent ID LR9491 No. 1 Our response Outcome

19.5.40

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

LR9447

We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and N comprehensive consultation exercise. We carefully considered the information we made available at phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. We believe that sufficient information is available regarding the operation phase in the consultation documents such as our draft CoCP and PEIR. We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient. An assessment of the likely significant effects on the natural environment is being completed as part of our environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient. The likely significant effects of the development on habitats N will be assessed and reported in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of the application.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) 19.5.41 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-14

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 19.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Ref 19.5.42 19.5.43 Objections, issues and concerns Locate construction activities within the site to avoid sensitive and designated areas. Other natural environment mitigation, including: - maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity through an effective mitigation package - Thames Water should take steps to secure the long-term protection of any protected species that may be impacted. Respondent ID LR9491 LR9447, LR9491 No. 1 2 Our response 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. Outcome N N

Noise and vibration


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to noise and vibration 19.5.44 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 19.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration issues during construction Ref 19.5.45 Objections, issues and concerns Noise and vibration from above-ground construction activity as the courtyard is enclosed by high buildings, and small amounts of noise echo and are amplified. Noise and vibration from construction traffic. General noise effects arising from construction activities. General vibration effects arising from construction activities. Respondent ID 8003LO No. 1 Our response As set out in our Shad Thames Pumping Station 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. Our contractor would be required to gain approval from the LBS prior to the construction work through a Section 61 application under the Control of Pollution Act that would set out specific working methods and the measures to minimise noise and vibration as well as any appropriate monitoring measures. 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. The Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application will include an assessment of likely significant noise and vibration effects that will be completed in line with the methodology that is compliant with BS5228, BS6472 and BS7385 and has been agreed with the LBS. Furthermore, we would implement best practice measures to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works, including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment and siting of equipment. Full details of the measures that would be adopted for the construction works will be set out in the CoCP, which will be submitted with our DCO application. We do not propose any 24-hour working at the pumping Outcome N

19.5.46 19.5.47 19.5.48

7808, 8237, 8297 (LR)LBS, 7598, 8650 7808, 8650

3 3 2

N N N

19.5.49

Effect of continuous (24-hour) working on

7808

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-15

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns noise and vibration impacts.

Respondent ID

No.

Our response station therefore this would not be an issue. We acknowledge that the main tunnel, which would be driven from Kirtling Street to Chambers Wharf, would pass by Shad Thames under the River Thames at a depth of approximately 57m. As we would use modern tunnelling methods and would generally be much deeper than most other tunnels under London, we believe that the likelihood of any potential ground movement or vibration at this site has been minimised.

Outcome

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration 19.5.50 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration Table 19.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction Ref 19.5.51 Objections, issues and concerns Mitigation proposed to address the issues is inadequate/insufficient. Respondent ID 8297, 8003LO No. 2 Our response The Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application will include a full assessment of likely significant noise and vibration effects that will be completed in line with the methodology that is compliant with BS5228, BS6472 and BS7385 and has been agreed with the LBS. If significant noise and/or vibration effects are identified at a site, we will set out appropriate mitigation measures to provide appropriate attenuation. Our draft CoCP sets out a range of measures that would be adopted by our contractor in order to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment, and use of enclosures to provide acoustic screens. Specific measures such as acoustic suppression systems, operation of equipment in the mode that minimises noise and shutting down equipment when not in use are also identified in our draft CoCP. Our contractor would be required to comply with the requirements of the CoCP. The draft CoCP also states that our contractor would be required to apply for Section 61 consents under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. These would set out specific working methods and measures to minimise noise and vibration as well as any appropriate monitoring measures to be agreed with local authority environmental health officers. The details of the noise control measures in our site information paper at phase two consultation are included in our draft CoCP. The CoCP identifies a range of measures that our contractor would be required to implement during construction, such as the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment, and use of enclosures to provide acoustic screens. Our contractor would also be Outcome N

19.5.52

Other noise and vibration mitigation, included: - S106 obligations should make provision for baseline noise-monitoring and a working group - a high level of sound/vibration protection

GLA, (LR)LBS

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-16

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns will be required.

Respondent ID

No.

Our response Outcome required to gain approval from the LBS prior to the construction work through a Section 61 application under the Control of Pollution Act, which would set out specific working methods and measures to minimise noise and vibration as well as any appropriate monitoring measures. The measures would be agreed with local environmental health officers. Full details of the measures that will be adopted for the construction will be set out in the CoCP that will be submitted with our DCO application.

Open space and recreation


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

Planning and development


19.5.54 No feedback comments were received in relation to planning and development during construction.

Socio-economic
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects 19.5.55 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to socio-economic effects during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects Table 19.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during construction Ref 19.5.56 Objections, issues and concerns Effect on property prices: we understand that there is an Exceptional hardship procedure that can be followed should your work start to impact on property values. Effect on ability to sell/rent property. Respondent ID 7808, 8650 No. 2 Our response 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. We note that the pumping station is currently an operational site. A full assessment of the effects on a range of topics, including noise and vibration; air quality (including dust emissions) and odour; and transport, based on a methodology that has been agreed with the LBS, will be provided with the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. 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 application. Outcome N

19.5.57

7808

19.5.58 19.5.59

Effect of construction activities on quality of life. Effect on residential amenity.

7013 (LR)LBS, 7013, 7767, 8297, LR9122

1 5

N N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-17

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response We are also preparing a Health impact assessment that will examine the effects of the proposed development on human health and well-being and possible effects in the population. The findings of this study will inform the design for this site as well as mitigation measures to address any significant effects. Our site selection process, as detailed in our Site selection methodology paper, included an assessment of the shortlisted sites against five 'community' considerations to help determine their suitability. They included proximity to sensitive receptors (including residents and schools), socioeconomic, health and equality considerations. Our Phase two scheme development report provides an overview of how each site was chosen. We do not propose any works that would be likely to affect the underground car parking near this site directly; however, we would need to rebuild the existing boundary wall with the pumping station, which is currently in a poor state of repair. The rest of our proposed works would mostly be located within the existing pumping station building in order to minimise any potential impacts on neighbouring properties. The timescale for the works at this site is estimated at one and a half years. The Environmental statement that we will submit as part of our DCO application will assess of the effects on residential amenity and make recommendations for mitigation. It is unlikely that the construction works would result in any significant socio-economic impacts.

Outcome

19.5.60 19.5.61 19.5.62 19.5.63

Proximity of construction site to residential properties. The area around the constructions site is densely populated. Extent and duration of construction works in a predominantly residential area More information is needed on socioeconomic effects; will residential properties on Curlew Street and the secure car park on Gainsford Street be impacted? Effect of construction activities on the local community. General disruption associated with construction activities. Effect on immediate neighbouring residents has not been properly addressed by the phase two consultation.

GLA, 7013 7767 7767 7013

2 1 1 1

N N N N

19.5.64 19.5.65 19.5.66

8297 7013, 7767, LR9122 8655

1 3 1

N N N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects 19.5.67 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 19.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during construction Ref 19.5.68 19.5.69 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on socioeconomic mitigation. Minimise disruption and inconvenience to residents, businesses and users of Maguire Street and the surrounding area. Respondent ID 9096 8673, 9063, 9067 No. 1 3 Our response We believe that we have described a range of measures that would mitigate the effects of the construction at this site. In particular, our draft CoCP stated that our contractor would be required to implement a range of best practice measures to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works, including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment, and use of hoardings to provide acoustic screens. We are continuing to develop our CoCP and Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of our DCO application. Outcome N N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-18

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Structures and utilities


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to structures and utilities 19.5.70 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to structures and utilities during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities Table 19.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during construction Ref 19.5.71 Objections, issues and concerns Structural damage to Tower Bridge. Respondent ID 7598 No. 1 Our response The proposed works at Shad Thames Pumping Station are unlikely to result in any structural damage to Tower Bridge due to the distance from the site and the nature of the works proposed. Outcome N

19.5.72

Structural damage to residential buildings including Wheat Wharf, which is a timber framed building; and concerns regarding vibration from works and construction traffic along Maguire Street.

7808

19.5.73

Possibility of ground movement and the 7808 associated effect on buildings and structures arising from construction activities and concerns that creating the shaft for the submersible pump will destabilise the land mass to the detriment of Wheat Wharf. More information is needed on structural 7808 effects and how they would be assessed including assurances that the work that is proposed will not cause any damage given the fragile nature of Wheat Wharf we are not sure how best to demonstrate that damage was caused as a result of Thames Water activity at its pumping station.

19.5.74

Our Settlement project information paper provides N information on our approach to controlling and limiting ground movement, which can cause settlement, associated with construction of the tunnel. It is acknowledged that construction of the tunnel would cause some small movements in the ground, the level of which would depend N on a range of factors including the size and depth of construction works as well as existing ground conditions. The use of modern tunnelling methods and the depth of our tunnels, which are generally much deeper than most other tunnels under London, minimise the likelihood of any potential ground movement. N We are assessing the potential likely significant effects of ground movement in advance of the works and, where necessary, would carry out protective measures. The proposed works within the pumping station would be sited sufficiently far away from Wheat Wharf to minimise any potential settlement. We would, however, monitor any ground movement during our works and carry out a defects survey where we consider this necessary. We would monitor actual ground movement during and after the tunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted. We would also carry out a defects survey on buildings located over, or close to, our tunnels and worksites where we consider this necessary. The method used for assessing settlement is similar to that used for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, the Jubilee Line Extension, and Crossrail. In the unlikely event of damage occurring to property due to our construction works taking place nearby, disturbance compensation may be available as detailed in our Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme. On-line storage of storm sewage flows is a widely-used practice and Thames Water has experience of the operational and maintenance requirements of this type of system. N

19.5.75

Effect on sewers including concerns associated with storing sewage in the existing sewer causing heavy siltation leading to heavy maintenance problems.

8002LO

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-19

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities 19.5.76 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities Table 19.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during construction Ref 19.5.77 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on mitigation of effects on structures and utilities and how they would be assessed. Respondent ID 7808 No. 1 Our response Our Settlement project information paper provides information on our approach to controlling and limiting ground movement, which can cause settlement, associated with construction of the tunnel. It is acknowledged that construction of the tunnel would cause some small movements in the ground, the level of which would depend on a range of factors including the size and depth of construction works as well as existing ground conditions. The use of modern tunnelling methods and the depth of our tunnels, which are generally much deeper than most other tunnels under London, minimise the likelihood of any potential ground movement. We are assessing the potential likely significant effects of ground movement in advance of the works and, where necessary, would carry out protective measures. The proposed works within the pumping station would be sited sufficiently far away from Wheat Wharf to minimise any potential settlement arising from them. We would, however, monitor any ground movement during our works and carry out a defects survey where we consider it necessary. We would monitor actual ground movement during and after the tunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted. We would also carry out a defects survey on buildings located over, or close to, our tunnels and worksites where we consider this necessary. The method used for assessing settlement is the same as that used for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, the Jubilee Line Extension, and Crossrail. In the unlikely event of damage occurring to property due to our construction works taking place nearby, disturbance compensation may be available as detailed in our Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme. Outcome N

19.5.78

Mitigation proposed to address the issues is inadequate/insufficient; for example, beforeand-after surveys are unlikely to be helpful.

7808

We disagree that before-and-after surveys would be unlikely N to be helpful. In our Settlement project information paper and our Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme we described the types of surveys that we would undertake in order to provide future protection for the surrounding community. 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. Our Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-20

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response sets out details of our compensation programme, which goes beyond the legal requirements, to ensure that people living or working near our worksites would be protected in the unlikely event that they are affected by our works. In the unlikely event of damage to property due to our construction works taking place nearby, disturbance compensation may be available.

Outcome

Townscape and visual


19.5.79 No feedback comments were received in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction.

Transport and access


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access 19.5.80 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to transport and access during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access Table 19.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction Ref 19.5.81 Objections, issues and concerns It is not clear what the scale of the effect will be/the assessment to date is very vague, particularly in respect of the impact of construction vehicles using the A200. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response Outcome

We expect that the scale and duration of the works at Shad N Thames Pumping Station would be limited, and the number of construction vehicles would be similar to those required for refurbishment works in adjacent buildings. We are preparing a full Transport assessment for submission as part of our DCO application. We propose to access this site from Jamaica Road via Shad Thames and Maguire Street, as illustrated in the site information paper. We are reviewing the proposed construction traffic routes as part of our Transport assessment. If the Transport assessment identifies any potential effects arising from congestion we will develop mitigation measures to minimise the effects of any disruption. We are also developing a CoCP (a draft Part A was provided as part of our phase two consultation) that will include requirements for a Traffic management plan to ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled in order to minimise any potential effects on the road network, including access to the local area, as well as setting out construction traffic routes, site access/egress points, signage and monitoring procedures. We expect that the scale and duration of the works at Shad Thames Pumping Station would be limited, and the number of construction vehicles would be similar to those required for refurbishment works in adjacent buildings. We are preparing a full Transport assessment for submission as part N N N

19.5.82 19.5.83 19.5.84

Construction traffic will cause traffic congestion. Construction traffic will exacerbate existing traffic congestion. Construction traffic will affect access to the local area, for example to Vanilla and Sesame Court Car Park. Alternative site access not via Gainsford Street is required. Effect of disruption, diversion or closure of roads on access to local amenities.

(LR)LBS, 8297 8237 7013, 8296, 8297

2 1 3

19.5.85 19.5.86

8237 8650

1 1

N N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-21

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Ref 19.5.87 19.5.88

Objections, issues and concerns Local roads are narrow and unsuitable for construction vehicles. Loss of car parking will affect accessibility to the local area and increase parking pressure.

Respondent ID 7767, 8306 8296, 8650

No. 2 2

Our response of our DCO application. We are reviewing the proposed routes that construction traffic would use as part of our transport assessment. Some on-street car parking would temporarily be lost during construction. We are currently considering possible alternative locations for replacement on-street parking and are working with the LBS on the need for and alternative positioning of spaces, where appropriate. We will design site accesses and operate all of our construction sites to ensure that they meet design, health and safety standards. We are developing a CoCP, a draft of which was provided as part of our phase two consultation, that will include requirements for a Traffic management plan to ensure that construction traffic would be carefully controlled in order to minimise any potential effects on the road network, including access to the local area, as well as setting out construction traffic routes, site access/egress points, signage and monitoring procedures. There would be a requirement to ensure that the proposals do not endanger safe access to schools. We will also review data in relation to recent accidents in the Transport assessment. The proposals will be subject to independent external review by Transport for London (TfL) and the local highway authority to ensure that proposed highway layouts and vehicle movement arrangements are as safe as possible.

Outcome N N

19.5.89 19.5.90 19.5.91

Effect of construction traffic on road safety. Effect of construction traffic on the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and local residents. Effect of construction traffic on residential amenity.

GLA (LR)LBS, 8813 (LR)LBS, 8237

1 2 2

N N N

19.5.92

More information is needed on transport effects, in particular on Curlew Street, and whether secure parking on Gainsford Street will be affected?

7013

We carefully considered the information we made available N at phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. The information was based on our preliminary transport assessment which is still being developed and we will discuss the details further with TfL and the LBS to ensure that any significant transport effects are identified in the Environmental statement to be submitted as part of our DCO application. We do not expect there to be any significant impact on Curlew Street and any proposed diverted traffic routes would be in agreement with the LBS.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access 19.5.93 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-22

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access Table 19.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction Ref 19.5.94 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on mitigation including measures to protect residential amenity Provide an alternative construction traffic route to and from the site; would be less disruptive and safer if the traffic/lorries/deliveries etc associated with the work were routed both inwards and outwards through Maguire Street and Shad Thames onto Tooley Street rather than outwards via Gainsford Street. Gainsford Street has a multi-story car park with limited turning space into and out it. Respondent ID (LR)LBS No. 1 Our response Details of the measures that would be employed to protect residential amenity are set out in out draft CoCP. Our contractor would be required to comply with the CoCP, which will be submitted with our DCO application. We propose to access this site from Jamaica Road via Shad Thames and Maguire Street, as illustrated in the site information paper. We are reviewing the proposed construction traffic routes as part of our Transport assessment. If the Transport assessment identifies any potential effects arising from congestion we will develop mitigation measures to minimise any disruption. We are also developing a CoCP (a draft Part A was provided as part of our phase two consultation) that will include requirements for a Traffic management plan to ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled in order to minimise any potential effects on the road network including access to the local area, as well as setting out construction traffic routes, site access/egress points, signage and monitoring procedures. We are investigating opportunities to provide alternative car parking for any suspended car parking required as a result of our works. We will continue to consult with the LBS and will report our conclusions in the Transport assessment that will be submitted with our DCO application. As set out in our Transport project information paper we would require most construction staff to travel to and from the site by public transport. As part of the Transport assessment that will be submitted with our DCO application we will consider the likely significant effects of our proposed approach and, where appropriate, provide mitigation such as on-site parking. Our contractor would also be required to agree a Transport management plan and a construction Travel plan with TfL and the LBS. Our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) sets out a range of measures to manage construction traffic and ways in which our contractor would operate the site, including sections on traffic and lorry management and control, road cleanliness, and reinstatement of public rights of way, as well as details about our working hours and the way we would manage our workforce. We took these measures into account in our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the scheme. We are currently preparing an Environmental statement that will identify further mitigation measures for any significant adverse Outcome N

19.5.95

LR13386LO

19.5.96

Make provision for alternative car parking.

(LR)LBS

19.5.97

Adopt appropriate site management measures to control construction worker parking, including cycle parking.

(LR)LBS

19.5.98

Establish traffic management plans.

7808

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-23

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response effects identified. We are discussing the details of the CoCP and framework Travel plan with the LBS. Our contractor would be required to submit a detailed site-specific Traffic management plan and Travel plan to TfL and the LBS for approval prior to commencing works.

Outcome

19.5.99

Complete a transport assessment.

(LR)LBS

We are preparing a Transport assessment that will be N submitted as part of our DCO application. It 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 recommendations for mitigation. We will work closely with TfL, the LBS, local residents and other interested groups to minimise the effects of traffic movements to and from the site. As detailed in our site information paper, where practical and cost-effective we would transport materials by barge. At this site it is not possible to transport materials by barge as the site is not next to the river and it would be necessary to convey materials by road to a suitable nearby wharf. However, our contractor would consider any opportunities for further use of river transport as part of the scheme. We will continue to discuss our proposals with the LBS. N

19.5.100 Use the river rather than road to transport construction materials and spoil.

8813

19.5.101 Careful traffic management on the narrow local roads will need to be agreed with the LBS.

GLA

Water and flood risk


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to water and flood risk 19.5.102 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to water and flood risk during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk Table 19.5.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID (LR)LBS No. 1 Our response A level two flood risk assessment will be presented in the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application and identify any appropriate mitigation. As our designs develop, we will review the likely significant construction effects on flood risk in order to determine any requirements for compensation. We note that the pumping station is an established built site and that the works are unlikely to affect the flood regime in this area. Outcome N

19.5.103 Effect on flood risk including groundwater flooding.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk 19.5.104 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 19.5.105 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-24

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

19.6
19.6.1 19.6.2

Permanent design and appearance


This section sets out feedback comments received during phase two consultation in relation to proposals for the permanent design and appearance of buildings and structures at Shad Thames Pumping Station that are required for the operation of the tunnel when it is in use (the operational phase). During phase two consultation, respondents were asked to give their views on the identification of site specific issues that have influenced proposals for the permanent design of Shad Thames Pumping Station (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 19.6.1 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 2 13 0 15 6 3 6 6 1 2 1 5 Yes No Dont know/unsure

19.6.3

As part of the phase two consultation, respondents were also asked to comment on proposals for the permanent design and appearance of Shad Thames Pumping Station (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 19.6.2 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 2 12 0 14
5 5 4

Supportive

Opposed

Dont know/unsure

1 5 4

1 3

19.6.4 19.6.5

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

19.6.6

Where respondents have commented on matters arising during the operational phase and the management of these effects (whether through design or by other means), these comments are reported in Section 19.7.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-25

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent layout and appearance of the site Table 19.6.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Ref 19.6.7 Supportive and neutral comments The reconfiguration is reasonable. Reengineering the pumping is a satisfactory solution as is retaining visual aspects of existing structure; as I understand it. What happens inside/on/under/behind is up to Thames Water Support proposals because they provide a simple, modest extension to the pumping station that is visibly separate from the main building appears sensible given its tight urban context. Other supportive comments: you have to do what is necessary for the benefit of all concerned. Respondent ID 7404, 7690, 8237 No. 3 Our response Your comments are noted and welcomed.

19.6.8

(LR)CABE

19.6.9

7404

Your comment is noted.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent layout and appearance of the site Table 19.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Ref 19.6.10 Objections, issues and concerns Effect of permanent design and layout on the conservation area; the proposed design needs to be discussed further. Respondent ID (LR)LBS No. 1 Our response As part of our design process we are taking the effect of our works on the Tower Bridge Conservation Area into account, although we note that our works would be within the existing pumping station site. An assessment of the impact of our proposals on the historic environment is being undertaken as part of the environmental impact assessment process. Preliminary findings of our assessment were included in the PEIR (volume 2, section 7), which was made available at phase two consultation. The complete assessment will be detailed in the Environmental statement to be submitted as part of our DCO application. Your comments are noted. The only permanent structure proposed at this site is the replacement building at the rear of the site, which would be lower than the existing building. We are considering whether we can reduce the height of the buildings in response to feedback received during phase two consultation. We believe the final design of the site would not have a negative effect on residential amenity or quality of life as the existing pumping station annex is poorly maintained and height of the proposed annex is lower than the existing one. Further details of architectural design, materials and finishes will be provided in the Design and access statement that will be submitted as part of our DCO application. Outcome N

19.6.11 19.6.12

The permanent buildings and structures are too large/tall. Effect on residential amenity and quality of life, resulting from loss of light to home.

7808, LR9122 7536, LR9122

2 2

C C

19.6.13

Need more information on design proposals, 8003LO, 9096 including external finishes of building and details of works to boundary wall.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-26

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Design suggestions
Table 19.6.5 Design suggestions Ref 19.6.14 19.6.15 Design suggestions Design should incorporate appropriate screening. 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. The final design should be distinctive and of architectural merit/iconic/visually attractive. A building form of a vernacular expression and muted tones could work well here but it should be apparent from the ordering and scale of the fenestration that it is not a residential building. Specific design amendments include: - retain the Victorian facade - no requirement for windows facing Wheat Wharf - use dark brickwork on the Wheat Wharf side to minimise maintenance - use sun tubes for natural lighting requirements. 19.6.19 Other design mitigation included: some indication has been given to the after use of construction sites, these aspects should be kept under review to reflect needs and opportunities as they appear on completion of works, which in some cases will be ten years from now. Reduce the height of permanent buildings and structures. 7808, GLA 2 Respondent ID 7801 7801 No. 1 1 Our response Your comments are noted and will be taken into consideration, where appropriate, in developing our proposals for this site. However, we note that our works would be within the existing pumping station site. The existing pumping station building would screen the whole site from the street frontage and the boundary walls screen the rear of the site. Our proposed works would not be visible from the street, except for some minor alterations to the frontage of the pumping station building and a lower, less prominent replacement building to the rear of the site. This site is, and would remain, occupied by operational buildings. This does not provide sufficient scope for landscaping, which is in keeping with the character of this area. Your suggestions for design amendments are noted and will be considered further to see whether these are feasible or appropriate, taking into account all other factors including the setting of the listed building and the character of the conservation area. We can also confirm that we would use dark brickwork at this site. Outcome N N

19.6.16

9096

19.6.17

(LR)CABE

19.6.18

7808, 8306, LR9491

N C C N N

19.6.20

8655

The only permanent structure proposed at this site is the replacement building at the rear of the site, which would be lower than the existing building. We are considering whether we can reduce the height of the buildings in response to feedback received during phase two consultation. The new electrical equipment building and alterations to the pumping station have been designed to reflect the existing buildings form and function, and the character of the surrounding area. We believe that we have undertaken an appropriate level of public consultation that has provided significant opportunity

19.6.21

Final site design should be informed by local

7801

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-27

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Ref

Design suggestions consultation/available for comment.

Respondent ID

No.

Our response for the local community to comment on our proposals. Our staged approach to consultation has also enabled us to revise our designs in response to comments and concerns. Your comments are noted. However, we do not expect that the permanent works required at Shad Thames Pumping Station would have any impact on the privacy of neighbouring properties. This matter was taken into consideration in our design development. We agree that our development should be environmentally friendly and will incorporate appropriate measures in our design.

Outcome

19.6.22

Consider the impact on the outlook and privacy of neighbouring residential properties.

(LR)LBS

19.6.23

Designs should be environmentally friendly/sustainable.

7801, LR9491

19.7
19.7.1 19.7.2

Management of operational effects


This section sets out feedback comments received during phase two consultation in relation to the management of operational effects at Shad Thames Pumping Station. This includes the identification of site specific issues associated with the site once it is operational and proposals to address the effects on these issues. During phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with Shad Thames Pumping Station once the site is operational and the ways to address these issues (see questions 7a and 7b of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The first part of question 7a and 7b asked respondents to select agree, disagree or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in tables 19.7.1 and 19.7.2. Tables 19.7.3 to 19.7.21 detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments confirmed whether the right issues and the ways to address those issues had been identified. Table 19.7.1 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 11 0 12 5 4 3 5 1 3 3 Yes No Dont know/unsure

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-28

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Table 19.7.2 Q7b: Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q7b) Respondent type Total Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total 19.7.3 0 0 2 12 0 14 6 3 5 6 1 2 1 4 Number of respondents 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 Shad Thames Pumping Station 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 19.7.4 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to general feedback comments on the identified key issues during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues Table 19.7.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues during operation Ref 19.7.5 19.7.6 Objections, issues and concerns There are more key issues than those identified in the site information paper. No operational effects have been identified. Respondent ID 8003LO 8650 No. 1 1 Our response We have not identified any key issues associated with this site once operational because we do not anticipate that there would be any difference in the effects to the existing pumping station. Outcome N N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-29

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

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 19.7.4 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation Ref 19.7.7 Supportive and neutral comments Measures to address potential issues are satisfactory. Respondent ID 7404, 7690 No. 2 Our response Your comment is noted and welcomed.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues Table 19.7.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation Ref 19.7.8 Objections, issues and concerns Measures to address potential effects are unsatisfactory because the wrong/not all issues have been identified. Measures to address issues should be informed by and take account of local consultation and feedback. Respondent ID 8650 No. 1 Our response Given that the site is an operational pumping station, we do not anticipate that the proposed works would have any effects. Our site information paper sets out the issues that we consider relevant. Outcome N

19.7.9

8003LO

The Changes project information paper, which N summarises the principal changes that have emerged from phase one consultation, shows that we are listening to the feedback we receive on our proposals and, where possible, are amending our proposals to reflect the concerns raised. Further details can be found in the Phase two scheme development report. This Report on phase two consultation sets out our view on how we intend to respond to the feedback received during this phase of consultation. When we submit our DCO application for determination, it will be accompanied by a Consultation report that will set out how we have taken the feedback received across all phases of consultation into account.

Air quality and odour


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour 19.7.10 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to air quality and odour during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour Table 19.7.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during operation Ref 19.7.11 19.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns Effect of odour arising from operation of the tunnel. Effect of odour on residential amenity. Respondent ID (LR)LBS, 7013, 8650 7013 No. 3 1 Our response Shad Thames Pumping Station would not form part of the proposed tunnel. Works would be limited to managing the existing storage in the sewers upstream of the pumping station to prevent it from pumping flows from the CSO into the River Thames. No new ventilation equipment is proposed as part of these works. Outcome N N

19.7.13

General air pollution effects arising from the

8650

A full assessment of potential 'pollution' will be presented in N the Environmental statement that we will submit with our

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-30

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns operation of the tunnel.

Respondent ID

No.

Our response DCO application. Our compliance with the regulatory regime applicable would be monitored by the LBS.

Outcome

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour 19.7.14 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour Table 19.7.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation Ref 19.7.15 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on air quality and odour mitigation. Respondent ID 9096 No. 1 Our response Shad Thames Pumping Station would not form part of the proposed tunnel. Works would be limited to managing the existing storage in the sewers upstream of the pumping station to prevent it from pumping flows from the CSO into the River Thames. No new ventilation equipment is proposed as part of these works. Details of proposed mitigation measures (odour control) for the wider project were set out in the Air management plan that formed part of our phase two consultation. More details of the likely significant effects of operation on air quality and odour will be set out in the Environmental statement and will be submitted with our DCO application. Outcome N

Historic environment
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment 19.7.16 19.7.17 19.7.18 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 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the historic environment during operation. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment Table 19.7.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during operation Ref 19.7.19 Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. 1 Our response The site layout and visualisations are provided in our Shad Thames Pumping Station site information paper and our Design project information paper sets out the common design principles, which include respecting each site's individual context and surroundings. At this site our design sought to preserve and enhance the setting of the heritage assets. Your comment is noted. The design of the permanent appearance of the structures is set out in our Shad Thames Pumping Station site information paper. The new Outcome N

Locate permanent structures to minimise their 9096 effect on the appearance and setting of local heritage assets.

19.7.20

Ensure that permanent design and landscaping is sensitive to and in keeping with the appearance and setting of local

(LR)LBS

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-31

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns heritage features.

Respondent ID

No.

Our response electrical equipment building and alterations to the pumping station have been designed to reflect the existing buildings form and function, and the character of the surrounding area. We will continue to develop the designs in association with our conservation consultant and the LBS in order to address both functional and heritage aspects of the proposals.

Outcome

Land quality and contamination


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to land quality and contamination 19.7.21 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to land quality and contamination during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination Table 19.7.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination during operation Ref 19.7.22 Objections, issues and concerns Potential for sewage leaks once the tunnel is operational. Respondent ID 7013 No. 1 Our response This site is not connected to the tunnel; therefore we do not expect sewage spills to be an issue at this site.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination 19.7.23 19.7.24 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination during operation.

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

Natural environment (aquatic)


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

Natural environment (terrestrial)


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 19.7.10 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Ref 19.7.27 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 comment is noted and welcomed.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation the natural environment (terrestrial) 19.7.28 19.7.29 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 effects on natural environment (terrestrial) during operation.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-32

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 19.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Ref 19.7.30 19.7.31 Objections, issues and concerns Provision of compensation habitat; put nesting and roosting boxes up. Maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity through an effective mitigation package. Locate permanent works within the site to avoid sensitive and designated areas. Respondent ID 7404 LR9491 No. 1 1 Our response There is no need to provide compensatory land-based habitat at this site as it is one of our existing operational properties. We are preparing a full environmental impact assessment that will present the conclusions of our assessments in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. All permanent works would be located within the defined site boundary. Outcome N N

19.7.32

LR9491

Noise and vibration


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to noise and vibration 19.7.33 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to noise and vibration during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration Table 19.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during operation Ref 19.7.34 19.7.35 Objections, issues and concerns General noise effects arising from the operation of the tunnel. General vibration effects arising from the operation of the tunnel. Respondent ID (LR)LBS, 8003LO 8650 No. 2 1 Our response We are undertaking a noise and vibration assessment. The methodology for the assessment has been agreed with the LBS and is compliant with BS4142. The results of the assessment will be presented in the Environmental statement submitted with our DCO application. This will include mitigation measures for any significant environmental effects identified. We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. We carefully considered the information we made available at phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. The Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application will include a noise and vibration section that will be completed in line with the methodology that is compliant with BS4142 and has been agreed with the LBS. We are confident, therefore, that the information we provided is sufficient. Outcome N N

19.7.36

More information is needed on noise and vibration.

8003LO

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration 19.7.37 19.7.38 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on noise and vibration No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during operation.

Open space and recreation


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

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-33

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Planning and development


19.7.40 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 19.7.41 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to socio-economic effects during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects Table 19.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during operation Ref 19.7.42 19.7.43 19.7.44 Objections, issues and concerns Effect on residential amenity including Curlew Street and Gainsford Street. Disturbance from operations. Respondent ID 7013 (LR)LBS No. 1 1 1 Our response A full assessment of likely significant effects will be provided with the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Where effects are identified, we would put in place mitigation measures to address these effects, in addition to the measures set out in our draft CoCP. We are also preparing a Health impact assessment that will examine the likely significant effects of the proposed development on human mental and physical health and well-being and possible effects in the population. The findings of this study will inform the design for this site as well as mitigation measures to address any significant effects. Outcome N N N

More information is needed on socio7013 economic effects; can you reassure that there will be no impacts to these areas (curlew Street, Gainsford Street).

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on socio-economic issues 19.7.45 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 the effects on socio-economic issues Table 19.7.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during operation Ref 19.7.46 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on socioeconomic mitigation. Respondent ID 7013 No. 1 Our response The site would remain an operational Thames Water site and we do not consider that there would be any significant socio-economic effects from the proposed works. Outcome N

Structures and utilities


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to structures and utilities 19.7.47 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to structures and utilities during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities Table 19.7.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during operation Ref 19.7.48 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on risk of settlement/subsidence including any knock on effect from Chambers Wharf. Respondent ID 9096 No. 1 Our response We consider it unlikely that the improvement works to this pumping station would result in settlement as operations would be similar to current operations. Chambers Wharf would have a separate function that is unlikely to have any Outcome N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-34

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response Outcome combined effect on properties around this site. Our Settlement project information paper provides information on our approach to controlling and limiting ground movement, which can cause settlement, associated with construction of the tunnel. It is acknowledged that construction of the tunnel would cause some small movements in the ground, the level of which would depend on a range of factors including the size and depth of construction works as well as existing ground conditions. The use of modern tunnelling methods and the depth of our tunnels, which are generally much deeper than most other tunnels under London, minimise the likelihood of any potential ground movement. We are assessing the potential likely significant effects of ground movement in advance of the works and, where necessary, would carry out protective measures. We would 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 to be required. The method used for assessing settlement is the same as that used for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, the Jubilee Line Extension, and Crossrail In the unlikely event of damage occurring to property due to our construction works taking place nearby, disturbance compensation may be available as detailed in our Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities 19.7.49 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities Table 19.7.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during operation Ref 19.7.50 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on mitigation in relation to settlement. Respondent ID 9096 No. 1 Our response We consider it unlikely that the improvement works to this pumping station would result in settlement as operations would be similar to current operations. Chambers Wharf would have a separate function that is unlikely to have any combined effect on properties around this site. Our Settlement project information paper provides information on our approach to protection against the likely significant effects of settlement associated with the construction of the tunnel. It is acknowledged that construction of the tunnel would cause some small movements in the ground, the level of which would depend on a range of factors including the size and depth of construction works as well as existing ground conditions. Outcome N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-35

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response The use of modern tunnelling methods and the depth of our tunnels, which are generally much deeper than most other tunnels under London, minimise the likelihood of any potential ground movement. Our CoCP sets out a range of measures that would be adopted to control and limit the risk of subsidence from the tunnelling and construction works. This includes assessing potential likely significant effects of ground movement in advance and, where necessary, carrying out protective measures. We would monitor actual ground movement during and after the tunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted. We would also carry out a dilapidation/condition survey on buildings located over, or close to, our tunnels and worksites where we consider this to be required. 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. In the unlikely event of damage occurring to property due to our construction works taking place nearby, disturbance compensation may be available as detailed in our Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme.

Outcome

Townscape and visual


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to townscape and visual effects 19.7.51 19.7.52 19.7.53 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 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address townscape and visual effects No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on townscape and visual during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address townscape and visual effects Table 19.7.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on townscape and visual during operation Ref 19.7.54 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on mitigation of townscape and visual effects. Respondent ID 9096 No. 1 Our response A process of iterative design and assessment is on-going and our commitment to good design will maximise the beneficial effects on local views and townscape character. This includes careful design of built structures and associated landscape design to ensure that they fit in with the character of the area. 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 assessment will identify any likely significant effects of the operational development, and any mitigation required to address them. Outcome N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-36

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Transport and access


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access 19.7.55 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to transport and access during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access Table 19.7.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during operation Ref 19.7.56 Objections, issues and concerns Effect of traffic and vehicles required for site maintenance; more frequent maintenance/repaired access to the site due to increased capacity. Respondent ID 8650 No. 1 Our response As set out in our site information paper, we expect to undertake inspection and maintenance of the mechanical and electrical equipment approximately every three to six months. This would be carried out within our site as part of the existing maintenance regime. We may also need to make visits to the site for unplanned maintenance or repairs, which may require use of mobile cranes and vans as is presently the case. 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. The information was based on our preliminary transport assessment, which is still being developed, and we will discuss the details further with TfL and the LBS to identify any significant transport effects in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of our DCO application. Outcome N

19.7.57

More information is needed on operational 9096 transport effects, for example what the new vehicle access on Maguire Street will be once the work is completed as this is a narrow road.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access 19.7.58 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access Table 19.7.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during operation Ref 19.7.59 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on transport mitigation for example access to Curlew Street. Respondent ID 7013 No. 1 Our response Access for any maintenance of this site would be from the existing access on Maguire Street. Therefore, we do not consider that there would be any significant impact on Curlew Street during operations. Outcome N

Water and flood risk


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to water and flood risk 19.7.60 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to water and flood risk during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk Table 19.7.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during operation Ref 19.7.61 Objections, issues and concerns Effect on flood risk and request to assess risk Respondent ID (LR)LBS, 8650 No. 2 Our response A level two flood risk assessment will be presented in the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application Outcome N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-37

19 Shad Thames Pumping Station

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns of surface water flooding from run-off.

Respondent ID

No.

Our response and will identify any appropriate mitigation. As our designs develop, we will review the permanent effects on flood risk in order to determine any requirements for compensation or storage. Should the pumps fail at this site, sewage would be discharged into the River Thames.

Outcome

19.7.62

Concern of flood in event of failure of pumps

(LR)LBS

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk 19.7.63 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during operation Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk Table 19.7.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during operation Ref 19.7.64 Objections, issues and concerns Incorporation of SuDS. Respondent ID (LR)LBS No. 1 Our response We will determine the feasibility of SuDS for this site once we have completed soak-away tests and a contamination study and, where relevant, will incorporate SuDS into our site design. Outcome N

19.8
19.8.1 19.8.2

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 our decision to use Shad Thames Pumping Station to control the Shad Thames Pumping Station CSO. Additionally, no new information or issues have been identified that would fundamentally change our proposals for this site. Therefore we will continue to develop the proposals for this site that we published at phase two consultation. The feedback we received included detailed comments on the construction and operational effects of the proposed development and the measures we propose to reduce and manage those effects. Detailed comments were also made on our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site. Having regard to the feedback received, we have decided to change our proposals for this site by reducing the height of the replacement building to the rear of the site and minimising the number of openings in the replacement building. These changes will improve the design of our proposals and reduce the impacts on the local community and environment. In our SOCC we recognised that we may need to amend our scheme following phase two consultation and that if changes came forward we would consider whether targeted consultation is appropriate. We do not consider that the degree of change in relation to this site or the effect on the local community would affect the nature of the comments received during phase two consultation in such a way as to require further consultation. On that basis, a round of targeted consultation on our proposals for this site is not considered necessary. We will progress with preparation of our application for a development consent order and will incorporate the changes referred to in paragraph 19.8.3. 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.

19.8.3

19.8.4

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

19-38