You are on page 1of 112

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

Supplementary report on phase two consultation


Chapter 20 Chambers Wharf

20 Chambers Wharf

Thames Tunnel Supplementary report on phase two consultation


List of contents Page number 20 Chambers Wharf ......................................................................................... 20-1 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5 20.6 20.7 20.8 Introduction ......................................................................................... 20-1 Number of respondents ...................................................................... 20-2 Site selection ...................................................................................... 20-2 Alternative sites ................................................................................ 20-15 Management of construction works .................................................. 20-21 Permanent design and appearance .................................................. 20-73 Management of operational effects .................................................. 20-82 Our view of the way forward ........................................................... 20-105

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20 Chambers Wharf

List of tables Page number Table 20.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on Chambers Wharf ....................................................................................................... 20-2 Table 20.3.1 Views on whether Chambers Wharf should be our preferred site (Q2) ....................................................................................................... 20-3 Table 20.3.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the selection of our preferred site ........................................................................ 20-3 Table 20.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the selection of our preferred site .................................................................................. 20-5 Table 20.3.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites .... 20-14 Table 20.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to Chambers Wharf .......................... 20-16 Table 20.4.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites.................................................... 20-21 Table 20.4.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites.................................................... 20-21 Table 20.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q4a) ............................................................. 20-22 Table 20.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q4b) ............................................................................... 20-22 Table 20.5.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to key issues during construction ....................................................................... 20-23 Table 20.5.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to key issues during construction .................................................................................. 20-23 Table 20.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction .............................. 20-25 Table 20.5.6 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour during construction ...................................................... 20-28 Table 20.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during construction ....................................................................... 20-28 Table 20.5.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction ... 2031 Table 20.5.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme .................................................................. 20-32 Table 20.5.10 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction site design and layout ................................................................... 20-34 Table 20.5.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout ..................................................................................... 20-34 Table 20.5.12 Suggestions for construction site design and layout .................... 20-36

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20 Chambers Wharf

Table 20.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during construction ....................................................................... 20-36 Table 20.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction ..................................................................................................... 20-38 Table 20.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to lighting during construction .................................................................................. 20-39 Table 20.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of lighting during construction .................... 20-39 Table 20.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction ........................................................ 20-40 Table 20.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during construction .................................................................................. 20-41 Table 20.5.19 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction ................................ 20-41 Table 20.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction ..................................................... 20-42 Table 20.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction .................................................................................. 20-43 Table 20.5.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during construction ....................................................................... 20-44 Table 20.5.23 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction ....................................................................... 20-49 Table 20.5.24 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction . 20-49 Table 20.5.25 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during construction ...................................................... 20-51 Table 20.5.26 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to planning and development during construction.................................................. 20-52 Table 20.5.27 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development during construction.................................................. 20-52 Table 20.5.28 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of planning and development during construction .................................................................................. 20-53 Table 20.5.29 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socioeconomic effects during construction .......................................... 20-53 Table 20.5.30 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during construction ....................................................................... 20-54

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20 Chambers Wharf

Table 20.5.31 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during construction ................ 20-60 Table 20.5.32 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during construction ....................................................................... 20-61 Table 20.5.33 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during construction 2062 Table 20.5.34 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction............................................................ 20-63 Table 20.5.35 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual during construction 2064 Table 20.5.36 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access during construction .................................................... 20-65 Table 20.5.37 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction ....................................................................... 20-65 Table 20.5.38 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction .. 2069 Table 20.5.39 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to water and flood risk during construction ........................................................ 20-71 Table 20.5.40 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during construction ....................................................................... 20-71 Table 20.5.41 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction 20-72 Table 20.6.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right issues that have influenced our permanent design for this site? (Q5) ..................... 20-73 Table 20.6.2 Please give us your views about our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site (Q6) ....................................... 20-73 Table 20.6.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site ............................................... 20-74 Table 20.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site ........................................................... 20-75 Table 20.6.5 Design suggestions ........................................................................ 20-80 Table 20.7.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q7a) ............................................................. 20-82 Table 20.7.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q7b) ............................................................................... 20-83 Table 20.7.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to key issues during operation ........................................................................... 20-83 Table 20.7.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to key issues during operation ...................................................................................... 20-84

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20 Chambers Wharf

Table 20.7.5 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation.. 20-85 Table 20.7.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation .................................. 20-85 Table 20.7.7 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour during operation .......................................................... 20-87 Table 20.7.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during operation ........................................................................... 20-88 Table 20.7.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation ... 20-89 Table 20.7.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during operation ........................................................................... 20-90 Table 20.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during operation 2091 Table 20.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination during operation .................................................... 20-92 Table 20.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during operation............................................................. 20-93 Table 20.7.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during operation ...................................................................................... 20-93 Table 20.7.15 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation..................................... 20-94 Table 20.7.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation ......................................................... 20-94 Table 20.7.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation ...................................................................................... 20-94 Table 20.7.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during operation ........................................................................... 20-95 Table 20.7.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during operation ..... 20-96 Table 20.7.20 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to open space and recreation during operation.................................................... 20-96 Table 20.7.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during operation........................................................... 20-96 Table 20.7.22 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to planning and development during operation ...................................................... 20-96 Table 20.7.23 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development during operation ...................................................... 20-97

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20 Chambers Wharf

Table 20.7.24 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socioeconomic effects during operation ................................................ 20-97 Table 20.7.25 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during operation ........................................................................... 20-98 Table 20.7.26 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during operation .................. 20-100 Table 20.7.27 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during operation ......................................................................... 20-100 Table 20.7.28 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to townscape and visual effects during operation ............................................. 20-100 Table 20.7.29 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during operation .............................................................. 20-100 Table 20.7.30 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual during operation .... 20101 Table 20.7.31 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access during operation ...................................................... 20-102 Table 20.7.32 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during operation ......................................................................... 20-102 Table 20.7.33 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during operation 20-103 Table 20.7.34 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during operation ......................................................................... 20-104 Table 20.7.35 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during operation . 20-104

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20 Chambers Wharf

20
20.1
20.1.1

Chambers Wharf
Introduction
This chapter covers the feedback comments received during phase two consultation regarding our preferred site Chambers Wharf. Chambers Wharf would be used to drive the main tunnel to Abbey Mills Pumping Station and to receive the main tunnel from Kirtling Street; and to connect three existing local combined sewer overflows (CSOs) to the main tunnel via a long connection tunnel (the Greenwich connection tunnel). The three CSOs are known as Greenwich Pumping Station CSO, Deptford Storm Relief CSO and Earl Pumping Station CSO. At phase one consultation, Kings Stairs Gardens was presented as the preferred site to intercept the CSOs and receive the main tunnel from Tideway Walk and Abbey Mills Pumping Station. However, following a review of possible sites and the tunnelling strategy and the joint acquisition of Chambers Wharf with St James, the site was identified and presented as the preferred site at phase two consultation. For further information regarding the proposals for this site at phase two consultation, refer to the Chambers Wharf site information paper. As part of our phase two consultation, we identified one shortlisted site for a main tunnel drive site. The shortlisted site is Kings Stairs Gardens. Where feedback comments were received on this shortlisted site, they are presented in section 20.3 (site selection) and section 20.4 (alternative sites) of this chapter.

20.1.2

20.1.3

Structure of this chapter


20.1.4 This chapter is organised as listed below, which reflects the structure of the phase two consultation feedback form: 20.1.5 section 20.2 Number of respondents section 20.3 Site selection section 20.4 Alternative sites section 20.5 Management of construction works section 20.6 Permanent design and appearance section 20.7 Management of operational effects section 20.8 Our view of the way forward.

In sections 20.3 to 20.7 we present details of the feedback comments raised, the types and total number of respondents, and our response to feedback comments. Where specific objections, issues or concerns have been raised, the final column of the tables indicates whether, in response to the feedback received: C we are considering or proposing change or additional mitigation1 to that set out in our phase two consultation material N we do not propose to amend our proposals.

20.1.6 20.1.7

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. Where over 250 responses were received, the details of the respondents are listed in annex D to this report.

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

20-1

20 Chambers Wharf

20.2
20.2.1

Number of respondents
A total of 639 respondents and three petitions provided feedback comments on Chambers Wharf, of which 70 were received after the close of phase two consultation. Table 20.2.1 sets out the different groups who provided feedback for this site. Table 20.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on Chambers Wharf Statutory consultees 7 respondents - Design Council CABE (CABE) - Consumer Council for Water (CCW) - English Heritage (EH) - Environment Agency (EA) - Greater London Authority (GLA) - London Councils (LC) - Port of London Authority (PLA) Local authorities 1 respondent - London Borough of Southwark (LBS) Landowners 50 respondents Community consultees 578 respondents Petitions 3 respondents - 7,602 signatories - 1,388 signatories, of which 485 were received after 4 November 2011 - 592 signatories

20.2.2

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

20.3
20.3.1

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

20.3.2

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

20.3.3

In this section, we set out the feedback comments received in relation to the selection of Chambers Wharf as our preferred site, together with our responses. Our responses provide relevant details of the site selection process and its findings up to phase two consultation. Where appropriate, we have also identified further work that we have undertaken in relation to our preferred site, such as the preparation of our Preliminary environmental information report (PEIR). As part of the project design development process, we continue to assess how the effects arising from the proposed development can be addressed. The output of our assessment up to phase two consultation is contained in appendix R of the Design development report and our PEIR (volume 22). Where respondents commented on matters relating to management of construction works, permanent design and appearance or the management of operational effects at Chambers Wharf, these comments are reported in sections 20.5 to 20.7.

20.3.4

Number of respondents
20.3.5 During phase two consultation, respondents were asked to comment on the decision to select Chambers Wharf as our preferred site to drive the main tunnel to Abbey Mills Pumping Station and receive it from Kirtling Street and connect the Greenwich Pumping Station, Deptford Church Street and Earl Pumping Station CSOs via the Greenwich connection tunnel (see question 2 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). Table 20.3.1 sets out details of the different groups who responded and were asked to select supportive, opposed/concerned or dont know/unsure. Tables 20.3.2 and 20.3.3 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.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-2

20 Chambers Wharf

Table 20.3.1 Views on whether Chambers Wharf should be our preferred site (Q2) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Number of respondents Total 0 1 48 522 2 47 1 - LBS 47 472 2 - 1,388 signatories, of which 485 received after 4 November 2011 - 592 signatories 47 522 4 1 3 Supportive Opposed/concerned Dont know/unsure

Total

573

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to our preferred site Table 20.3.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the selection of our preferred site Ref 20.3.6 20.3.7 Supportive and neutral feedback comments Support the use of the preferred site. Support the identification of a new preferred site since phase one consultation/the preferred site is more suitable than the site put forward at phase one. Reasons included: - good road infrastructure and river access - Kings Stairs Gardens need to be protected as an open space and community facility - reduced impact on residential amenity - lower environmental impact - it is a brownfield site that can be redeveloped following completion of the works; the site was going to be redeveloped anyway. The preferred site is more suitable than any alternative site. The preferred site is more suitable than the Respondent ID GLA, 7189, 7590, 7592, 7625, 9063, LR13417, LR9447 PLA, 7101, 7111, 7157, 7160, 7189, 7270, 7585, 7624, 7625, 7726, 7800, 7804, 8099, 8119, 8198, 8306, 8323, 8606, 8610, 8765, 8791, 8827, 8876, 8886, 8933, 8936, 8943, 9055, 9063, 9145, 9298, 9442, LR9491 No. 8 33 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.

20.3.8 20.3.9

8119, 8886 7451, 7804, 7926, 7939, 7966

2 5

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-3

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Supportive and neutral feedback comments shortlisted site Kings Stairs Gardens (site 1). Thames Water has taken objections raised at phase one consultation into account in site selection. The physical characteristics of the site make it suitable, including: - good road and river access - no removal of trees The site is currently vacant/derelict/ available for redevelopment. The site is currently under-utilised. Possible effects associated with the selection of the site are manageable/can be satisfactorily addressed. In particular, large scale construction on this site was already planned and consented. Support site selection because the project needs to be undertaken. There will be no/minimal negative long-term effects on the local area. Other supportive feedback comments included: - site is already allocated for development and can be redeveloped afterwards - objections are due to a NIMBY attitude amongst local residents - project will bring wider public benefits. The site will be a catalyst for regeneration/ redevelopment/improvements to the local area. The site is a suitable size and/or has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposals. The site is already owned by Thames Water. It is a brownfield site.

Respondent ID

No.

Our response

20.3.10

8323, 8907, 9063, LR8975, LR9315

Noted. We have considered the feedback comments received at phase one consultation and, where possible, have incorporated them into the revised proposals we presented at phase two consultation. Your support is noted.

20.3.11

7101, 7155, 7587, 7592, 7800, 7925, 8078, 8188, 8323, 9442

10

20.3.12 20.3.13 20.3.14

7038, 7157, 7160, 7536, 7925, 8099, 8119, 8188, 8323, 8606, 8765, 8886, 8943 7155 8323

13 1 1

20.3.15 20.3.16 20.3.17

8078, 8323 7925, 7926 7189, 7211, 7592, 8078, 8099, 8186

2 2 6

20.3.18

8188

20.3.19

8099

Agreed.

20.3.20 20.3.21

7189 7038, 7101, 7111, 7155, 7160, 7211, 7451, 7579, 7585, 7586, 7587, 7592, 7624, 7625, 7800, 7804, 7925, 7926, 7939, 7966, 8119, 8186, 8188, 8306, 8323, 8491, 8606, 8610, 8827, 8876,

1 33 Noted. The preferred site is brownfield land, which was one of the considerations taken into account as part of our site selection process.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-4

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Supportive and neutral feedback comments The site is an industrial site.

Respondent ID 8943, 9298, 9442

No.

Our response

20.3.22

8306, 8765

Your comment is noted. However, since the site has been cleared and has planning permission for residential development, we do not consider Chambers Wharf is an industrial site. Noted. Effect on residents was one of the considerations taken into account as part of our site selection process as well as the ability to mitigate likely significant effects. Noted. As shown in the visualisations in Chambers Wharf site information paper, we propose to provide a new area of open space that would be publicly accessible.

20.3.23

Use of the site would have limited effects on the local area and community. Use of the site would not result in the loss of open space/use of greenfield sites. Qualified support for the preferred site, subject to the permanent design incorporating the renovation of river facing areas as green space with full public access.

7101, 7157, 8188

20.3.24 20.3.25

7111, 7579, 7585, 7624, 7625, 8765, 9063 7038

7 1

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to our preferred site Table 20.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the selection of our preferred site Ref 20.3.26 Objections issues and concerns Object to the use of this preferred site. Respondent ID 8303LO, 9092LO, 9133LO, 13214, 7165, 7166, 7490, 7496, 7578, 7580, 7584, 7589, 7987, 8465, 8486, 8713, 8751, 8911, 8912, 8965, 8970, 8989, 9007, 9035, 9129, 9156, 9163, 9168, 9193, 9194, 9198, 9200, 9202, 9206, 9214, 9249, 9264, 9297, 9395, 9476, 9496, 9497, LR13472, LR9315, 9450PET, 9451PET 7695, 8649, 8738 See annex D of this report 8632LO, 9084LO, 9085LO, 9086LO, 7756, 8558, 8751, 8776, 8970, 9023, LR9274LO, LR9280, LR9315, 9450PET, 9451PET See annex D of this report 13495LO, 8632LO, LR9271LO, 8911, 8912, 9347, LR13381, LR13413 No. 46 Our response The sites that we consulted on at phase two consultation have been identified through an extensive site selection process (see our Site selection methodology paper on our website). We consulted on and agreed the methodology with key stakeholders including potentially directly affected local authorities and utilised a multidisciplinary approach to assess main tunnel sites and main tunnel drive options against engineering, planning, environmental, property and community considerations. We recognise that, given the locations where we are seeking to construct and operate the tunnel, many of the shortlisted sites are constrained. However, based on our assessment we consider that, on balance, Chambers Wharf is the most suitable site. This is because it is a brownfield site and has good access to the River Thames, which would allow the removal of excavated material and delivery of construction materials to the site via barge. The site would not cause disruption to the Thames Path because it is already diverted around the site, therefore no diversion works would be required. Our proposal would not prevent the completion of the approved residential development on this site. For further details on the results of the site selection process, including our assessment of shortlisted sites, refer to appendix R of the Phase two scheme development report. Following phase one consultation, we considered the feedback comments from phase one consultation, along with feedback from ongoing engagement and new information. We also undertook further

20.3.27 20.3.28 20.3.29

Disagree with the selection of this preferred site. This preferred site is generally unsuitable. Should use/consider an alternative site specifically an existing industrial site or one in a less densely populated area. There are other more suitable alternative sites available in the local area. Alternative sites have not been properly considered.

3 364 15

20.3.30 20.3.31

279 8

20.3.32

Site selection has not incorporated feedback 7166 comments and objections from phase one consultation or interim engagement.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-5

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref 20.3.33

Objections issues and concerns Objection to the change of preferred site/ introduction of a new site since phase one consultation. Specifically, concerned that Thames Water has acted in a manner that appears biased and that the consultation appears pre-determined.

Respondent ID 13490LO

No. 1

Our response technical work. Based on our assessment we consider that, on balance, Chambers Wharf is the most suitable site. This is because it is a brownfield site and has good access to the River Thames, which would allow the removal of excavated material and delivery of construction materials to site via barge. The site would not cause disruption to the Thames Path because it is already diverted around the site, so no diversion works would be required. Our proposal would not prevent the completion of the approved residential development on this site. Our consultation has been undertaken in line with the Statement of community consultation and Community consultation strategy that set out how we would consult to meet best practice and the relevant legislative requirements. These documents were consulted on with the potentially directly affected local authorities and statutory consultees before being published prior to both our phases of consultation. As set out in the Site selection background technical paper, we need two types of site to construct and operate the project. These are: - CSO sites to intercept the CSO and, if needed, drive the connection tunnel to the main tunnel - main tunnel sites to either drive or receive the tunnel boring machine used to construct the main tunnel. We stated in our consultation material, including the Chambers Wharf site information paper, that the sites to build the main tunnel need to be located where the geology that the tunnel would go through changes. At this location the geology changes from clays, sands and gravels to chalk. To meet health and safety requirements and construct the tunnel with acceptable risk of major failure, we consider it necessary to use different tunnelling machines for different geological conditions. In addition we would need to connect the three existing local CSOs, at Earl Pumping Station, Deptford Church Street and Greenwich Pumping Station, to the main tunnel so that the discharges could be conveyed to Beckton Sewage Treatment Works, via Abbey Mills Pumping Station, for treatment. We believe that our assessments, which have been carried out in accordance with the Site selection methodology paper, are comprehensively explained in appendix R of the Phase two scheme development report. Based on our assessment we consider that on balance, Chambers Wharf is the most suitable site. This is because it is a brownfield site and has good access to the River Thames, which would allow the removal of excavated material and delivery of construction materials to the site via barge. The site would not cause disruption to the Thames Path because it is already diverted around the site, therefore no diversion works would be required. Our proposal would not prevent the completion of the approved residential development on this site. We also consider that some of the likely significant effects arising from the development at this site can be addressed through design development and/or mitigation measures. More information can be found in the Design development report and PEIR.

20.3.34

Selection of this preferred site has been poorly justified/inadequately explained. In particular: - not clear why the Chambers Wharf site is needed - site has been selected because it is an easier option than undertaking additional tunnelling - further explanation is required as to why Chambers Wharf is the only solution. Reasons for selecting this preferred site are flawed/questionable. In particular: - Chambers Wharf is not a 'brownfield site' - would require a (greenfield) extension into the river - justification of the need for the site is weak - use of the site would be more expensive - development offers no long-term benefit for the community - site selection has been driven purely by opportunity - profit should not be a factor - impacts on the environment and community have not been properly considered - selection is contrary to the site selection methodology (eg proximity to sensitive receptors) - lack of explanation of how various factors

LR9271LO, 8566, 9023, LR13381, LR9279

20.3.35

7274LO, 7996LO, 8410LO, 8561LO, 8571LO, 8803LO, 8887LO, 9083LO, 9084LO, 9107LO, 9147LO, LR9271LO, LR9272LO, 13484, 7215, 7402, 7580, 7621, 7767, 8416, 8486, 8712, 8750, 8834, 8849, 8890, 8938, 9007, 9249, 9387, 9395, 9488, LR13413, LR8975, LR9136, LR9315, LR9341

37

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-6

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections issues and concerns have been weighted. The preferred site put forward at phase one consultation is more suitable. Abbey Mills Pumping Station should be used as the main drive site because: - it has better road infrastructure - use of the River Lee would reduce road transport - the site has capacity to store spoil and materials - lower impact on residential amenity - higher construction costs are justified by lower community impact. Reasons for changing the preferred site since phase one consultation are unclear/ unjustified/unsatisfactory. With regards to Abbey Mills Pumping Station: - feasibility of using the River Lee to transport materials needs to be investigated further - use of the River Lee would reduce road transport - higher construction costs are justified by the lower community impact - the site has better infrastructure - argument that the change in ecological conditions in Southwark means the selection of Chambers Wharf is not convincing. With regards to Kings Stairs Gardens: - the preferred site has simply been repositioned from other areas due to local protests - Thames Water has purchased Chambers Wharf and now has to justify that decision; its purchase has also predetermined its use - Thames Water has not dealt with factors that gave rise to the identification of Kings Stairs Gardens as the preferred site - Kings Stairs Gardens is twice the size of Chambers Wharf

Respondent ID

No.

Our response Responses to the detailed points raised can be found in appendix R of the Phase two scheme development report. Following phase one consultation, we considered the feedback comments from phase one consultation, along with feedback from ongoing engagement and new information. We also undertook further technical work. As part of this work, we reviewed the drive strategy for this section of the main tunnel. As a result of the review, we concluded that Abbey Mills Pumping Station was less suitable than Chambers Wharf for the following reasons: - further technical work and discussions with the Thames Tunnel project team and Olympic Delivery Authority on their experience for the Olympic Park has shown that transporting materials to and from Abbey Mills Pumping Station via the River Lee is highly undesirable when material needs to be transported daily over a two- to three-year period. The same level of barge movements would be required if the site were used as main tunnel drive site, given the volume of excavated material that would be produced - at Abbey Mills Pumping Station there are more constraints in using Bow Creek to remove excavated material due to the fact that only small 350 tonne barges could be used during a short tidal window, while at Chambers Wharf, 1,500 tonne or potentially larger barges could be used on the River Thames to remove excavated material produced by a main tunnel drive site - use of Chambers Wharf as the main tunnel drive site avoids the need to work in Channelsea River, which would avoid the potential health and safety risks associated with the contaminated materials in the Channelsea River. It also means a lesser impact on the foreshore ecology and water resources at Abbey Mills Pumping Station - it has been determined that work to construct campsheds and wharf facilities in the Channelsea River would introduce high health and safety risks, including the handling of contaminated materials. This risk does not exist at Chambers Wharf. Although we recognise that the works at Chambers Wharf have the potential to effect local residents, it is considered that appropriate mitigation measures could be put in place to address them, such as the construction shed to minimise noise during periods of 24-hour construction. In relation to Kings Stairs Gardens, we assessed both sites and, based on our professional judgement, we consider Chambers Wharf more suitable. Appendix R of the Phase two scheme development report comprehensively sets out why we consider Chambers Wharf more suitable.

20.3.36

9086LO, 9147LO, 7496, 7621, 7804, 8306, 8430, 8486, 8568, 8673, 9023, 9149, 9387, 9488, 9496, 9497, LR13498

17

20.3.37

8410LO, 13490LO, 8226, 8649, 8712, 9387

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-7

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections issues and concerns - criteria used as justification for preferring Chambers Wharf are inconsistent with the published criteria for phase one. The shortlisted site Kings Stairs Gardens (site 1) is more suitable because: - it is cheaper - it has better road access - it is not located in a dense residential area or close to schools - there are alternative local open spaces - open space can be reinstated and improved following construction - would allow Chambers Wharf to be redeveloped immediately. Insufficient information has been provided on shortlisted sites. Specifically, the consultation process and surveys undertaken for Kings Stairs Gardens are flawed. A particular report did not mention the school, community centre and church right on the doorstep of Kings Stairs Gardens. When open space surveys were undertaken, the people who carried them out purposefully stood away from the centre of the gardens and did not take into account the children or dog walkers using the facilities in the garden. The site selection methodology is incorrect/ flawed/unjustified. In particular: - it fails to take account of the effect on quality of life and human health - insufficient weight is given to the impact on local communities - it is biased towards the successful implementation of the project - engineering preferences should not dictate the sites; availability of acceptable sites should dictate engineering solutions - inconsistency in site selection reports and application of criteria. Site selection should use/prioritise brownfield sites. Site selection should not use sites in the

Respondent ID

No.

Our response

20.3.38

7262LO

Our re-assessment of sites prior to phase two consultation and our review of phase two consultation feedback comments does not support the use of King's Stairs Gardens as our preferred site. King's Stairs Gardens is less suitable than our preferred site because it would involve the temporary loss of public open space and the diversion of the Thames Path. The site also has relatively poor river access. Kings Stairs Gardens does not have any existing jetty and wharf facilities, therefore these would need to be constructed. Refer to chapter 6 and appendix R of the Phase two scheme development report for further details on why we consider Chambers Wharf more suitable. We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. As part of this, we carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. Details of our shortlisted sites are described and illustrated throughout the phase two consultation material, including the site information papers which provide an overview of the detail in the Phase two scheme development report. We are confident, therefore, that the information we have provided is sufficient.

20.3.39

8626

20.3.40

LR9272LO, 8649, 8890, 9007, 9385, 9395, 9475, LR9341

The sites on which we have consulted were identified through an extensive site selection process as set out in the Site selection methodology paper that is available on our website. This methodology was agreed with key stakeholders, including potentially directly affected local authorities, prior to its use. The paper explains how environmental, planning, engineering, property and community considerations were taken into account in the site selection process.

20.3.41

7582

Whether a site is brownfield or greenfield/open space was taken into account along with other considerations, as set out in the Site selection methodology paper. In general, main tunnel sites would be located on land due to a range of

20.3.42

8899

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-8

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref 20.3.43

Objections issues and concerns River Thames foreshore.

Respondent ID

No. 2

Do not support the specific location/extent of LR9272LO, 8899 the site. Specifically it would be easier if the construction site is entirely located on land.

Our response engineering constraints and requirements. Only where it has proved difficult to identify suitable land-based sites have we explored the potential for siting main tunnel sites wholly or partially in or on the foreshore of the River Thames. Further information can be found in the Site selection background technical paper, which is available on our website. At Chambers Wharf, where we would extend into the foreshore, one of the benefits is that barge movements would not be tide constrained, which provides more flexibility during construction. It should also be noted that the area of the construction site shown in our drawings is the maximum area that the site would extend into the foreshore and it is possible that the contractors may choose to reconfigure the site in a way that minimises the part of the site in the foreshore. As part of the site selection process, we considered the planning status of a site in our assessment and a professional judgement was made as to whether or not our proposed use would have an impact. It should be noted that even if sites have been allocated or have secured a planning permission, it does not preclude the use of the site. Other factors such as whether the planning permission would be implemented need to be considered. Even then it may be possible for construction work to be phased so that both the approved development and the Thames Tunnel project could be constructed. Designated regeneration areas do not necessary preclude the use of a site as our proposed use may in many cases be complementary or beneficial to some of the regeneration aims. In relation to the approved residential development on this site, we will continue to work with St James, the residential developer, to ensure our proposed works are compatible with the approved development and do not result in any unnecessary delays for construction of the approved flats, associated facilities and landscaping. As with any development of this nature, the completion of the residential development would depend on the market conditions, which is one reason why this site became available. The main tunnel search area and tunnel alignment generally follows the River Thames. This is because it is an efficient route to connect CSOs on the north and south side of the river, it minimises going under buildings and allows the use of river transport during construction. The proposed site is a disused industrial site, which was a factor when proposing this as our preferred site to construct the main tunnel. In addition to the locational constraints for main tunnel sites, the sites need to fulfil other engineering requirements and planning, environment, property and community considerations must be taken into account. Given that we are searching for sites in central London and given the requirements that the sites need to fulfil, we did not consider it appropriate to exclude industrial sites when compiling our longlist of sites. We considered the use of the land, including any designations, as part of the assessment. The main tunnel search area and tunnel alignment generally follows the

20.3.44

Site selection should avoid sites that have been allocated for/are known to be awaiting, or have planning permission for redevelopment.

(LR)LBS, 8303LO, 8768LO, LR9272LO, 13490LO, 8753, 8890, 9395, 9476, 9488, 9496, 9497, 9450PET

13

20.3.45

Site selection should prioritise use of industrial sites.

7215

20.3.46

Site selection should avoid sites in

See annex D of this report

432

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-9

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections issues and concerns residential and/or densely populated areas.

Respondent ID

No.

Our response River Thames. This is because it is an efficient route to connect CSOs on the north and south side of the river, it minimises going under buildings and allows the use of river transport during construction. In addition to the locational constraints for main tunnel sites, the sites need to fulfil other engineering requirements and planning, environment, planning and community considerations. Given that we are searching for sites in complex, built-up areas of central London and given the requirements that the sites need to fulfil, we did not consider it appropriate to exclude sites based on their use when compiling our longlist of sites. Proximity to sensitive receptors including schools and housing was taken into account along with other considerations, as set out in the Site selection methodology paper. We recognise that St Michael's Roman Catholic Secondary School in particular is in close proximity to our preferred site. However, as set out in appendix R of the Phase two scheme development report, we consider that Chambers Wharf is the most suitable site and that potential effects on community facilities can be mitigated. Refer to paragraph 2.5.18 for our response to this feedback comment.

20.3.47

The site selection should avoid sites that are See annex D of this report close to sensitive receptors, including: - local schools, including St Michaels School and Riverside Primary School - sheltered housing .

418

20.3.48

The drive strategy and associated use of this site needs to be reconsidered. In particular: - the site should be used as a main drive site or a reception site, not both - if the tunnelling strategy changes, there would be no need to use Chambers Wharf at all since there is no CSO to be intercepted in Southwark - illogical to tunnel towards Southwark from Greenwich Pumping Station - existing Thames Water sites should be used as main tunnel drive sites - change of drive site to Abbey Mills Pumping Station should not mean that Chambers Wharf is used as a drive site for the Greenwich connection tunnel - changes in soil conditions do not justify the use of Chambers Wharf - alternative options include using Blackfriars as an emergency exit and driving from Abbey Mills Pumping Station to Battersea with an egress route on the north side of the River Thames - current proposals will move sewage up and down the tunnel - current proposals are not cost-effective.

8303LO, 8803LO, 9083LO, 9084LO, 9086LO, LR9272LO, 10880, 8226, 8558, 8781, 8849, 9063, 9149, 9357, 9387, LR8975, LR9315

17

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-10

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref 20.3.49

Objections issues and concerns Impact on residential amenity should be considered as part of the site selection process, specifically proximity to the local park. Existing uses on the site present development constraints.

Respondent ID 13379LO, 9475

No. 2

Our response Proximity to residential areas and amenity areas such as local parks and the potential effect of our proposals on residential amenity was taken into account along with other considerations, as set out in our Site selection methodology paper. Chambers Wharf is currently a disused industrial site that has been partially cleared for redevelopment, which means there are no current uses that would be affected by our proposals on this site. We have, however, taken into account the approval for a residential development on this site in our site selection process, as set out in appendix R of our Phase two scheme development report. Due to the phasing of the residential development at the Chambers Wharf site, it is possible for the Thames Tunnel project works to be undertaken. Cost is one of the considerations that inform site assessments, but it is not an overriding factor that outweighs all other engineering, planning, environmental, community, property and wider economic considerations. High acquisition costs alone would not outweigh positive considerations such as use of brownfield land, conformity with planning policy, and the ability to construct/operate the proposed works on the site. Equally, a low value site would not become our preferred site if there were significant planning, environmental or community concerns associated with its use. In determining our preferred site, we made a balanced judgement taking planning, environment, engineering, property and community considerations into account. The Site selection background technical paper, which accompanies the Site selection methodology paper, specifies the site sizes required for CSO and main tunnel sites. We have used these criteria to select our preferred sites. Chambers Wharf is therefore an appropriate size to accommodate our proposals. Our site selection process has had regard to possible likely significant effects on the local area and community, and the environmental impact assessment process will undertake further assessment and recommend any necessary mitigation measures. The environment and community assessments undertaken as part of site selection considered the number and nature of sensitive receptors, as well as the possible likely significant effects from traffic and construction works including noise, air quality and visual impact. We also considered likely significant effects on employment uses and possible conflict with planning policy that seeks to protect local amenity. Accordingly, we consider that the scale of possible likely significant effects on the local area and community has been adequately considered. In addition, health and safety effects of our proposals have been considered. We also have obligations under The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM) as far as reasonably practicable to avoid foreseeable risks to the health and safety of any person carrying out construction work. The designer must eliminate

20.3.50

8356

20.3.51

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

7262LO, 7261, 8890, 8899, 9074, 9347, 9395, 9475, 9476, LR9341

10

20.3.52

The site is too small and does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposals; the site would need to be extended 50m into the River Thames in order to accommodate the proposals. The scale of effects on the local area and community resulting from the selection of this site is unacceptable/has not been properly considered. In particular, Thames Water has not adequately considered the environmental, health and safety impact of building the tunnel from this site.

7262LO, 7452, 7460LO, 8303LO, 8562LO, 8571LO, 9093LO, 9105LO, 9147LO, LR9271LO, 7621, 7709, 7761, 8456, 8557, 8558, 8649, 8653, 8753, 8803LO, 8899, 8938, 9074, 9198, 9251, LR8975, LR9112 See annex D of this report

27

20.3.53

404

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-11

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response hazards where possible and reduce risks from any remaining hazards. We have been undertaking hazard identification and risk assessments as part of our on-going design development work. As a result of this work, we are confident that any risks could be managed. For further details on the results of the site selection process, refer to appendix R of the Phase two scheme development report. Refer to paragraph 2.5.18 for our response to this feedback comment.

20.3.54

Site selection should be reconsidered, 8801LO, 8989, 9488 taking into account opportunity and social costs and a comparison with the cost of a tunnel boring machine (TBM) breaking down occasionally, or the cost of a link to Beckton Sewage Treatment Works or Limehouse. Site selection should avoid sites on the riverside. 7402, 9475

20.3.55

20.3.56

The site should be developed for other uses, specifically residential use.

8444

The main tunnel search area and tunnel alignment generally follows the River Thames. This is because it is an efficient route to connect CSOs on the north and south side of the river, it minimises going under buildings and allows the use of river transport during construction. In addition to the locational constraints for main tunnel sites, the sites need to fulfil other engineering requirements and planning, environment, property and community considerations must be taken into account. Given that we are searching for sites in central London and given the requirements that the sites need to fulfil, we did not consider it appropriate to exclude riverside sites when compiling our longlist of sites. We considered the use of the land, including any designations, as part of the assessment. Using a site for the Thames Tunnel project does not preclude the site from other uses once construction is complete. The footprint of the permanent works required for the operation of the project is significantly smaller than the space required during construction. The area not permanently required could be used for other uses, including those specified. Refer to paragraph 2.2.32 for our response to feedback comments related to need and solution. In addition to sites to intercept the CSOs we also need sites to construct the main tunnel to transfer the sewage to Beckton Sewage Treatment Works for treatment. Preventing the current regular discharges into the river would have benefits not just for areas closest to CSOs but also for other riverside communities, such as the area around Chambers Wharf. While no CSO needs to be intercepted at this site, Southwark does have a CSO (at Shad Thames Pumping Station to the west of Chambers Wharf) that requires works to prevent the current discharges to the River Thames. We propose to manage this CSO by utilising the existing sewer system in this area and modifying the pumping station. However, this would not be possible if we did not intercept the other CSOs to the east of Southwark, particularly Earl Pumping Station on the Lewisham/ Southwark border, which would deal with additional flows from the west, including those that originate in Southwark.

20.3.57

Disagree with site selection due to wider objections to the proposed solution, specifically: - not necessary to use a site in Southwark as there are no CSOs to intercept - Thames Water could construct the tunnel without using this site.

7996LO, 8303LO, 8410LO, 8560LO, 8561LO, 8562LO, 8563LO, 8569LO, 8571LO, 8795LO, 8802LO, 8887LO, 9083LO, 9084LO, 9086LO, 9092LO, 9107LO, 9254LO, 9380LO, LR9272LO, LR9274LO, LR9379LO, LR9386LO, 10829, 10830, 10832, 10833, 10837, 10838, 10839, 10840, 10841, 10842, 10843, 10844, 10845, 10846, 10847, 10848, 10849, 10850, 10851, 10852, 10853, 10854, 10855, 10856, 10857, 10858, 10860, 10861, 10862, 10863, 10864, 10865, 10866, 10867, 10868, 10870, 10871, 10872, 10873, 10876, 10885, 10890, 10928, 10951, 10953, 10954, 10955, 10956, 10957, 10959, 10968, 10969, 11002, 11003, 11004,

178

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-12

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections issues and concerns

20.3.58

Site selection should avoid sites adjacent to or containing heritage assets; Chambers Wharf is very close to Tower Bridge World Heritage Site (WHS), sits partially in the Protected London Panorama View: Greenwich Park to Central London and has significant archaeological potential.

Respondent ID 11005, 11006, 11007, 13484, 7261, 7496, 7578, 7582, 7761, 8062, 8194, 8251, 8252, 8253, 8255, 8256, 8258, 8259, 8260, 8266, 8268, 8270, 8271, 8272, 8273, 8297, 8298, 8299, 8300, 8386, 8393, 8394, 8415, 8416, 8417, 8418, 8419, 8420, 8423, 8426, 8428, 8431, 8432, 8456, 8557, 8558, 8567, 8572, 8624, 8647, 8673, 8712, 8738, 8751, 8753, 8890, 8927, 8943, 8953, 9007, 9074, 9082, 9129, 9149, 9198, 9251, 9308, 9316, 9317, 9334, 9353, 9357, 9381, 9395, 9475, 9488, 9496, 9497, LR10970, LR10972, LR10975, LR10981, LR10996, LR11000, LR13404, LR13405, LR13406, LR13407, LR13408, LR13411, LR13413, LR13416, LR8422, LR9136, LR9280, LR9289, LR9341, LR9343, LR9352, LR9360 EH, 8410LO, 8561LO, 8803LO, LR9272LO, 8299, 8300, 8649, 8712, 8836, 8890, 9168, 9206, 9288, 9395, 9476, LR9341

No.

Our response

17

The main tunnel search area and tunnel alignment generally follows the River Thames. This is because it is an efficient route to connect CSOs on the north and south side of the river, it minimises going under buildings and allows the use of river transport during construction. In addition to the locational constraints for main tunnel sites, the sites need to fulfil other engineering requirements and planning, environment, property and community considerations must be taken into account. As set out in the Site selection methodology paper, sites in Londons WHSs have not been identified in recognition of the historic importance of these sites. Given that we are searching for sites in central London and given the requirements that the sites need to fulfil, we did not consider it appropriate to exclude sites included or adjacent to other designated heritage assets when compiling our longlist of sites. We considered the effect of our proposals of heritage designations as part of the assessment. We concluded that effects on built heritage and townscape would not be significant and therefore the site was considered suitable. Site selection has involved a multidisciplinary approach and has considered community (including socio-economic) and environmental factors alongside planning (including policies on sustainable development), engineering and property considerations. We are satisfied that our approach takes full account of environmental issues and the requirement for sustainable development. We do not consider that undertaking construction works at Chambers Wharf would negatively affect the area around Tower Bridge. Based on the sites we have identified through the site selection methodology, we consider that Chambers Wharf to be most suitable.

20.3.59

Site selection appears unsustainable/not environmentally friendly.

9160

20.3.60

Other concerns, issues and objections include: - site is too close to a major tourist area
- the fact that Thames Water has changed

LR9271LO, 7589, 7987, 8938, 9036, LR13498, LR8975

the site once suggests it can be done again

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-13

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections issues and concerns


- none of the sites proposed appear to

Respondent ID

No.

Our response

adequately address the issues


- it is a lazy solution simply because the

site became available


- continued extension of the proposed

dates for commencement of the project offers the opportunity to ensure that proposals are representative of the various options that may not have existed at the time the project was initially proposed
- area is up and coming and would be

Alternative solutions to constructing a tunnel have been considered in detail over a number of years however no suitable or practicable alternative has been identified, which has recently been confirmed in the government's National Policy Statement for Waste Water, that was published in March this year.

damaged by the proposals. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to shortlisted sites 20.3.61 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the shortlisted sites. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites

We do not expect that construction of the tunnel in this location would compromise the wider regeneration of the area or future redevelopment of the site.

Table 20.3.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites Ref Objections, issues and concerns Shortlisted site Kings Stairs Gardens (site 1) is unsuitable for the proposed use(s) because: - it is a greenfield site, open space, green corridor and designated village green - the site is a valuable recreational and community resource in a socially deprived area - there are few other open spaces in the local area and use of the site would result in the permanent loss of some open space - proximity to residential dwellings and impact on residential amenity - the site is located in an Archaeological Priority Area, Kings Stairs Gardens, Southwark Park Conservation Area and neighbours the Moated Manor House of Edward III Scheduled Monument and other historic sites - heritage value of the site itself - impact on views of local landmarks and river events Respondent ID EH, (LR)LBS, 8787LO, LR9274LO,7582, 7624, 7625, 7725, 7804, 7939, 7966, 8054, 8186, 8188, 8323, 8475, 8477, 8483, 8488, 8491, 8604, 8606, 8610, 8626, 8673, 8692, 8765, 8775, 8776, 8780, 8793, 8857, 8876, 8907, 8933, 8936, 8940, 8941, 8942, 8943, 8964, 8967, 8972, 8973, 8980, 8988, 8996, 8997, 9026, 9028, 9029, 9063, 9067, 9243, 9259, 9298, 9339, 9347, 9383, 9385, 9389, 9488, 9494, LR9158, 13377PET No. 65 Our response Based on our assessment, we consider that Kings Stairs Gardens may potentially be suitable as a main tunnel site, however, in comparison to our preferred site it is less suitable because it would involve the temporary loss of public open space and the diversion of the Thames Path. The site also has relatively poor river access. Kings Stairs Gardens does not have any existing jetty and wharf facilities, therefore these would need to be constructed. For further details on the results of the site selection process, including responses to the detailed points raised, refer to chapter 6 and appendix R of the Phase two scheme development report.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-14

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns - local road infrastructure and site access is unsuitable - the site has a high ecological value, including Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) designation - the site is a prime tourist attraction - use of the site would have a negative economic impact on the local area - the site is part of the Thames Path, Jubilee Greenway and National Cycle Network - impact on planned developments in the local area - greenfield sites should be protected as they help to reduce surface runoff - phase one consultation site selection methodology was flawed and information contained in the Chambers Wharf site information paper contradicts letters sent to Save Kings Stairs Gardens Action Group regarding site suitability. Objection to the inclusion or referencing of Kings Stairs Gardens (site 1) as a possible alternative to the preferred site.

Respondent ID

No.

Our response

(LR)LBS, 8787LO, 9133LO, 7101, 7111, 7189, 7270, 7582, 7585, 7586, 7624, 7625, 7719, 7725, 7800, 7804, 7966, 8054, 8186, 8194, 8465, 8475, 8477, 8488, 8491, 8572, 8604, 8606, 8610, 8625, 8626, 8673, 8692, 8738, 8775, 8776, 8780, 8793, 8857, 8907, 8933, 8935, 8936, 8940, 8941, 8942, 8943, 8964, 8965, 8967, 8972, 8973, 8980, 8988, 8996, 8997, 9028, 9029, 9043, 9063, 9067, 9156, 9243, 9259, 9298, 9339, 9347, 9383, 9385, 9389, 9494, LR9158, LR9315, 9450PET

74

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

20.4
20.4.1

Alternative sites
During the phase two consultation, respondents were invited to suggest alternative sites that they thought should be used to drive the main tunnel to Abbey Mills Pumping Station and receive it from Kirtling Street and connect the Greenwich Pumping Station, Deptford Church Street and Earl Pumping Station CSOs via the Greenwich connection tunnel instead of Chambers Wharf (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:

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-15

20 Chambers Wharf

Table 20.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to Chambers Wharf Ref 20.4.2 Alternative site suggestions Chambers Wharf. Reasons It is a brownfield site which is derelict and has been cleared. The site also has good access by road and river. This site is also preferred over Kings Stairs Gardens. It is a larger site, less expensive and would not delay residential development proceeding at Chambers Wharf. It is large enough to accommodate both drive points and a receptor point, therefore reducing the tunnelling impact on Greenwich. It would also not require construction works in the foreshore of the River Thames. It has not been sufficiently evaluated by Thames Water, and no sufficient reason has been given as to why it was rejected at phase two. The site is also further from schools and residential areas, which would mean less disruption for local residents. The site also benefits from good road access and would cause less traffic congestion than at Chambers Wharf. It has direct river access and the addition of a small jetty would enable the removal of excavated material via the river. After construction works, the site could be re-landscaped. During construction Southwark Park can be used as an alternative green space. It is a brownfield site, with sufficient land to house and undertake the construction works. The site is further away from residential areas and cheaper than Chambers Wharf. However, any additional cost and difficulty associated with using this site is far outweighed by the effects of the construction works on local Respondent ID 7536, 7966, 8119 No. 3 Our response As set out in the Chambers Wharf site information paper, this is our preferred site.

Preferred site

Shortlisted sites 20.4.3 King's Stairs Gardens. 8768LO, 13490LO, 7709, 7262, 8680, 8899, 8653, 7 We did identify and consider this site. It is a shortlisted site and is considered less suitable than our preferred site (Chambers Wharf) because it would involve the temporary loss of public open space and the diversion of the Thames Path. The site also has relatively poor river access. It does not have any existing jetty and wharf facilities, therefore these would need to be constructed. While we recognise that the site may be further away from residential properties and local amenities, we consider that at Chambers Wharf these effects could be adequately mitigated. For further details on the results of the site selection process, refer to appendix R of the Phase two scheme development report.

Other sites 20.4.4 Abbey Mills Pumping Station. 7460LO, 8560LO, 8571LO, 8632LO, 8803LO, 9083LO, 9085LO, 9086LO, 9092LO, 52 Following phase one consultation, we considered the comments from phase one consultation, along with feedback from on-going engagement and new information. We also undertook further technical work. As part of this work, we reviewed the drive strategy for this section of the main tunnel. As a result of the review, we concluded that Abbey Mills Pumping Station was less suitable than Chambers Wharf for the following reasons: - further technical work and discussions with the Lee Tunnel project team and Olympic Delivery Authority on their experience for the

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-16

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Alternative site suggestions

Reasons residents at Chambers Wharf. The tunnel should be built from Abbey Mills Pumping Station using the technology outlined by the 'Save Your Riverside' campaign, namely hybrid TBMs. It was the preferred site at phase one consultation and is a Thames Water operational site. Thames Water should provide detailed reasons as to why it is not possible, especially since the site is already set up for major construction works due to works associated with the Lee Tunnel. The site has better road and river access allowing use of the River Lee to transport materials (as demonstrated by the Lee Tunnel). The site would also not affect the Thames Path or riverside views. The risk of subsidence is also lower at Abbey Mills Pumping Station. If you amend the drive strategy for the main tunnel and the Greenwich connection tunnel, it would be possible to obviate the need for a site at Chambers Wharf. Therefore use of Abbey Mills Pumping Station would be most appropriate.

Respondent ID 9093LO, 9105LO, 9147LO, 9254LO, LR9271LO, LR9272LO, LR9274LO, 9146LO, 7452, 7496, 7621, 7695, 7767, 8041, 8260, 8268, 8299, 8430, 8558, 8568, 8572, 8673, 8753, 8781, 8791, 8890, 8953, 9007, 9063, LR9112, 9149, 9161, LR9280, LR9341, LR9343, 9347, 9357, 9387, 9395, 9475, 9496, 9497, LR13413,

No.

Our response Olympic Park have shown that transporting materials to and from Abbey Mills Pumping Station by the River Lee is highly undesirable when material needs to be transported daily over a two- to three-year period. The same level of barge movements would be required if the site were used as main tunnel drive site, given the volume of excavated material that would be produced - at Abbey Mills Pumping Station there are more constraints in using Bow Creek to remove excavated material due to the fact that only small 350 tonne barges could be used during a short tidal window, while at Chambers Wharf, 1,500 tonne or potentially larger barges could be used on the River Thames to remove excavated material produced by a main tunnel drive site - use of Chambers Wharf as the main tunnel drive site avoids the need to work in the Channelsea River, which would avoid the potential health and safety risks associated with the contaminated materials in the Channelsea River. It would also mean a lesser impact on the foreshore ecology and water resources at Abbey Mills Pumping Station - we have determined that work to construct campsheds and wharf facilities in the Channelsea River would introduce high health and safety risks, including the handling of contaminated materials. This risk does not exist at Chambers Wharf. Although we recognise that the works at Chambers Wharf have the potential to effect local residents, we consider that appropriate mitigation measures could be put in place to address them, such as the construction shed to minimise noise during periods of 24-hour construction. For further details on the results of the site selection process, refer to appendix R of the Phase two scheme development report. In addition to the response provided here, you may also find the response at paragraph 2.5.18 of interest. We did identify and consider this site although it did not progress beyond the draft shortlist stage of the site selection process. This site was appraised as only suitable as a main tunnel reception site. It was considered less suitable than Chambers Wharf since the site has no direct access to the River Thames, it would impact on large number of planning designations, including development on Metropolitan Open Land, Historic Park and Garden etc and would result in temporary loss of the park, which would impact on park users and other sensitive receptors. This site would also require the main tunnel to be diverted far inland which means that it would pass under more properties and have other hydraulic consequences. For further details on the results of the site selection process, refer to appendix R of the Phase two scheme development report. Since phase one consultation, we decided that we would change our eastern main tunnel site from Kings Stairs Gardens to Chambers Wharf.

20.4.5

Southwark Park.

It is a large site which is further away from residential areas and local schools. The site also has good road access and is near the river, which would facilitate barge use.

8303LO

20.4.6

Greenwich Pumping Station.

There should not be a site in Southwark since no CSO is being

9083LO, 9084LO, 8573,

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-17

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Alternative site suggestions

Reasons intercepted; drive Greenwich connection tunnel from Greenwich Pumping Station to Abbey Mills Pumping Station thereby avoiding Chambers Wharf. Suggested site is further from residential properties. There should not be a site in Southwark since no CSO is being intercepted.

Respondent ID 9347

No.

20.4.7

Deptford Church Street.

8573, 9347

Our response Chambers Wharf is constrained by site size and programme limitations, which mean that this site can only support one tunnel drive. Further investigation also found that it would be difficult to drive the main tunnel from Abbey Mills Pumping Station. Therefore, we decided to use Chambers Wharf to drive the main tunnel to Abbey Mills Pumping Station. We also need a long connection tunnel drive site to connect the three CSOs being intercepted at Earl Pumping Station, Deptford Church Street and Greenwich Pumping Station. Due to the limitations identified at Chambers Wharf, we needed to investigate the option of driving the connection tunnel from Greenwich Pumping Station or an alternative site. We considered sites in the vicinity of Deptford Church Street and Greenwich Pumping Station as alternative long connection tunnel drive sites and not as alternatives to Chambers Wharf. As well as needing to intercept CSOs, we also need sites to construct the main tunnel at certain locations where the geology that the tunnel would go through changes, such as the area around Chambers Wharf. Greenwich Pumping Station or Deptford Church Street are too far away from where this geological change occurs and therefore are not suitable for this purpose. We do, however, need to intercept the CSOs at both the suggested sites and transfer the sewage flow to the main tunnel so it can be treated at Beckton Sewage Treatment Works. Our preferred site to make this connection is Chambers Wharf, for the reasons set out in appendix V of our Phase two scheme development report. It would not be possible to drive a tunnel directly to Abbey Mills Pumping Station and intercept the three CSOs on this side of the river from Greenwich Pumping Station without a connection to the main tunnel somewhere in the Limehouse area. We have not identified any suitable sites to make this connection. Deptford Church Street would not be large enough to construct the main or long connection tunnels and it is too far away from the River Thames, which means that it would not be possible to transport materials by river. Both sites, like most sites in London, have residential areas close to them. For further details on our assessment of long connection tunnel drive sites refer to appendix V of the Phase two scheme development report. Refer to paragraph 2.5.18 for our response to this feedback comment.

20.4.8

Kirtling Street.

The main tunnel should be driven from Kirtling Street and Abbey Mills Pumping Station. There is no reason to do any work in Southwark and using this site would have less impact on local communities.

8558

20.4.9

Blackfriars Bridge Foreshore.

It could be used as an emergency exit LR9272LO as there is no need to drive from Chambers Wharf.

The site suggested has been identified through the site selection process as being suitable as a CSO interception site. We need a smaller site for CSO interception and therefore the suggested sites are not large enough to accommodate works associated with a main tunnel site. If we used the suggested sites we would still need to intercept the CSO, which would require a larger site than if we used the site solely to build the main

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-18

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref 20.4.10

Alternative site suggestions The square silver cladded building jutting out into Thames from Wapping - Part of or next to the Marine Police Unit. The site at Rotherhithe. Convoys Wharf.

Reasons Site is located next to the River Thames.

Respondent ID 8646

No. 1

Our response tunnel. The site of the Marine Policing Unit in Wapping is not considered a suitable alternative to Chambers Wharf. The site is not large enough for a main tunnel drive site and is an important operational facility which would not be available for use. Beckton Sewage Treatment Works and sites in Rotherhithe/further east are not suitable as an alternative to Chambers Wharf because they are too far east. This is undesirable for two reasons: main tunnel sites should be located where the geology that the main tunnel would pass through changes (there is a change of geology in the Southwark area from sands to chalk); and it would increase the duration of the construction programme beyond six years, which is contrary to the assumptions that underpin the selection of drive options. We have consistently identified the need for a main tunnel site in this area in our proposals published in both phases of our consultation for the reasons set out in the Site selection background technical paper. We did look at sites north of the river and to the east of Tower Bridge, but none were found to be suitable for a number of reasons, including the densely populated residential nature of the area which limited the availability of any suitable sized sites close to the River Thames in the required area. For further details refer to Site selection background technical paper and chapter 6 of the Phase two scheme development report.

20.4.11 20.4.12

Less impact on residents. It is more isolated. Convoys Wharf should be used to drive the Greenwich connection tunnel to Greenwich and to Chambers Wharf since it is a large site in a nonresidential area with no extant planning permission. It is a deepwater wharf and would enable excavated materials and other materials to be moved by river. It would save 15,000 local residents from seven years of unnecessary inconvenience and exposure to danger. East London is less built-up/further away from the heavily populated and scenic area immediately east of Tower Bridge. Phil Stride has admitted that a site in Southwark is not necessary. There are a number of brownfield sites/warehouses next to the River Thames. Thames Water is looking in the wrong area; Southwark is not a major sewage contributor so should not host a main tunnel site. The suggested site is further from residential areas.

10848 7800, 8186

1 2

20.4.13

Beckton Sewage Treatment Works.

9161

20.4.14

Further east.

8305LO, 8300, 8320

20.4.15 20.4.16

A site outside of Southwark. A site in Deptford, including non-residential site and derelict wharf.

8563LO, 8887LO, 8639 8303LO, 9084LO, 9085LO, 9086LO, 9146LO

3 5 We require two types of site to build the Thames Tunnel project: sites to intercept local CSOs and sites at which we can drive or receive the TBMs. We have considered all the potential sites that we identified in accordance with our site selection methodology and did not identify a suitable site main tunnel site in Deptford. The sites we identified in Deptford were only suitable as CSO interception sites. One of the reasons why sites in Deptford are generally not suitable is that main tunnel drive sites need to be located on the River Thames to allow the large volumes of excavated material that would be generated to be removed by barge. The sewerage system flows from west London eastwards to the sewage treatment works at Crossness, which means that Southwark does contribute to flows further east of the borough, including three of the CSOs we need to intercept to prevent discharges into the river, particularly the Earl Pumping Station CSO that is on the boundary with Southwark. Due to the nature of the project, it is necessary to select a package of main tunnel sites and have regard to how they would work in combination and in relation to the tunnel alignment and CSO

20.4.17

A non-residential site/industrial site.

Should prioritise brownfield/industrial sites which are not in residential areas since this will have less impact

8796LO, 9083LO, 9084LO,

15

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-19

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Alternative site suggestions

Reasons on the local community/quality of life and will be further away from local schools. It will also have less impact on the local ecology.

Respondent ID LR9386LO, 8225, 8412, 8649, 8750, 8751, 8776, 8786, LR9111, LR9116, 9269, LR9279 7756, 8486

No.

20.4.18

Another of Thames Water's sites.

Thames Water owns or has access to at least one other site in an industrial area; the use of these sites should be prioritised.

Our response connections. A main tunnel site cannot therefore be selected in isolation. Prior to identifying the precise location of the main tunnel sites, we established the broad areas in which they would be needed. These extended 500m from the edge of the River Thames. Sites need to be within this distance of the River Thames to maximise the potential to use river transport and minimise how much of the main tunnel would be constructed under existing buildings. As part of the site selection process, we considered all potential sites in each zone. Based on our assessment, sites in non-residential areas were considered not suitable. For further information, refer to appendix R of the Phase two scheme development report. No sites owned by Thames Water in this part of London met our search parameters and therefore it is not possible to utilise a Thames Water site. Chapter 6 of the Phase two scheme development report provides more information on our approach to selecting tunnelling sites and chapter 6 and appendix W explain why Abbey Mills Pumping Station is considered less suitable as a main tunnel site. Our preferred site, Chambers Wharf, is a brownfield site. As part of the site selection process, we have considered all sites that fall within our search parameters (set out in our Site selection methodology paper). Prior to identifying the precise location of the main tunnel sites, we established the broad areas in which they would be needed. These extended 500m from the edge of the River Thames. Sites need to be within this distance of the River Thames to maximise the potential to use river transport and minimise how much of the main tunnel would be constructed under existing buildings. All other brownfield sites assessed in the search area were considered unsuitable. Further details are contained in appendix R of the Phase two scheme development report. The current situation that this project is preparing to address is the CSOs in London that regularly discharge into the River Thames. Since this is where the CSOs are located we need to construct our tunnel and interceptions of these CSOs on sites in London. Due to the nature of the project, it is necessary to select a package of main tunnel sites and have regard to how they would work in combination and in relation to the tunnel alignment and CSO connections. A main tunnel site cannot therefore be selected in isolation. Prior to identifying the precise location of the main tunnel sites, we established the broad areas in which they would be needed. These extended 500m from the edge of the River Thames. Sites need to be within this distance of the River Thames to maximise the potential to use river transport and minimise how much of the main tunnel would be constructed under existing buildings. The suggested site is outside of this area and therefore is not considered to be a suitable main tunnel drive site.

20.4.19

Brownfield site(s) - further from residential areas - near railway tracks - further downstream - further from the river.

There are a number further south of the river which would be further from residential areas and schools.

8569LO, 9392LO, 7490, 7966, 9383

20.4.20

Any site outside of London.

It should not be in London directly adjoining residents.

8764

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-20

20 Chambers Wharf

20.4.21

Respondents also made the following feedback comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites: Supportive and neutral feedback comments Table 20.4.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites Ref 20.4.22 Supportive and neutral feedback 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 noted and welcomed.

Objections, issues and concerns Table 20.4.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites Ref 20.4.23 Objections, issues and concerns It is the responsibility of Thames Water to identify sites, should be non-residential, with access by river only. Respondent ID 8298, 8614 No. 2 Our response We have undertaken an extensive site selection process, the results of which are contained in our phase two consultation material. The purpose of phase two consultation was to seek feedback on the work we have undertaken. Refer to appendix R of our Phase two scheme development report for further details. As set out in our phase two consultation material, we consider that Chambers Wharf is the most suitable site.

20.4.24 20.4.25

Unable to comment; none of the proposed sites adequately address the issues. There are no suitable sites in Bermondsey/Southwark. It is a dense residential area and there are major tourist attractions along the river which form an important source of income for the local area. Not an expert/not qualified/do not have the knowledge to comment.

8305LO, 8783 7996LO, 7165, 7166

2 3

20.4.26

8552LO

The purpose of consultation is to explore as fully as possible what those with an interest in the project think about our proposals. We will have regard to feedback comments received from both technical and nontechnical consultees.

20.5
20.5.1 20.5.2

Management of construction works


This section sets out feedback comments received during the phase two consultation in relation to the management of construction works at Chambers Wharf. This includes the identification of site specific issues arising from construction activities and proposals for addressing these issues. During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with Chambers Wharf 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 20.5.1 and 20.5.2. Tables 20.5.3 to 20.5.41 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

20-21

20 Chambers Wharf

Table 20.5.1 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 37 124 0 161 42 104 15 4 38 32 72 1 14 Yes No Dont know/unsure

Table 20.5.2 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 20.5.3 Number of respondents Total 0 0 37 118 0 155
28 105 22

Yes

No

Dont know/unsure

34 28 71

3 19

The following sections set out the feedback comments received from respondents in connection with the identification of key issues associated with Chambers Wharf 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 on measures to address the key issues

Topic-based themes Air quality and odour Construction working hours 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

20-22

20 Chambers Wharf

General feedback comments on the identified key issues


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the identified key issues Table 20.5.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to key issues during construction Ref 20.5.4 Supportive and neutral comments The correct key issues have been identified. Respondent ID 7996LO No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted and welcomed.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues Table 20.5.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to key issues during construction Ref 20.5.5 20.5.6 Objections, issues and concerns The wrong/none of the key issues have been identified. The scale of potential effects has not been properly assessed and/or underestimated. Respondent ID 8653 8653, 8751, 8849, 9129, LR9136 No. 1 5 Our response Outcome

The key issues set out in the Chambers Wharf site N information paper are intended to provide a broad overview of potential effects and key issues associated with the site N during construction. It is not, however, an exhaustive list. A more detailed description of possible likely significant effects and the methodology through which they have been identified is provided in other technical reports, including the PEIR (volume 22), Design development report, Phase two scheme development report, Site selection methodology paper and Site selection background technical paper. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Please refer to our response at paragraph 20.3.26 above. N

20.5.7

More fundamental issues regarding the site's selection, its suitability and alternative sites have not been addressed/recognised. There are more key issues than those identified in the site information paper.

7465

20.5.8

8768LO

The consultation provides the opportunity for us to respond N to any additional issues raised. The key issues set out in the Chambers Wharf site information paper are intended to provide a broad overview of potential effects and key issues associated with the site during construction. It is not, however, an exhaustive list. A more detailed description of possible likely significant effects and the methodology through which they have been identified and assessed is provided in other technical reports, including the PEIR (volume 22), Design development report, Phase two scheme development report, Site selection methodology paper and Site selection background technical paper. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-23

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref 20.5.9

Objections, issues and concerns There is no guarantee that the issues identified at this stage will reflect the reality of construction.

Respondent ID 8303LO, 8849

No. 2

Our response

Outcome

We are developing a Code of construction practice (CoCP) N that will set out how we would manage our construction sites to minimise disruption to nearby communities. During construction, we would require all contractors to be fully certified under the Considerate Contractors Scheme. These measures will allow us to identify any unforeseen effects arising from construction and put suitable measures in place to manage them. The measures set out in the Chambers Wharf site information paper are intended to provide a broad overview of how we intend to address potential issues associated with the site. Further information can be found in the draft CoCP and PEIR (volume 22). Measures proposed to address likely significant effects are being further developed and considered as part of the environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. If a DCO is granted we anticipate a series of conditions that would control the development. We expect that the conditions would require the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental statement submitted with the application and other commitments to be implemented. N

20.5.10

While Thames Water may have identified the right key issues, the solutions put forward to address them are unsatisfactory.

7460LO, 8795LO

20.5.11

Responses to the key issues devolve Thames Water of any responsibility for addressing them.

8849

20.5.12

Thames Water is not interested in properly identifying or addressing the key issues, and associated consultation is only there to give the appearance of public involvement.

7460LO, 8300

The Changes project information paper, which summarises N the principal changes emerging 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 being 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, a Consultation report will accompany it. The Consultation report will set out how we have taken into account the feedback received across all phases of consultation. We have considered all potential issues, including those relating to the removal of excavated material and other construction activities associated with the use of this site as a main drive site. The key issues set out in the site information paper are what we consider to be the most significant issues associated with Chambers Wharf during construction. It is not, however, an exhaustive list, and further potential issues associated with the site are set out in N

20.5.13

Other general construction issues and comments included: - any impact is unwanted

7366, 7579, 8764

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-24

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns


- would welcome more positive statements

Respondent ID

No.

Our response the PEIR (volume 22). We have sought to avoid or eliminate potential likely significant effects wherever possible, both by developing robust technical solutions to potential issues such as odour, and through our proposals for the construction and operational site design and layout. We believe that the measures set out in the site information paper and draft COCP would address and/or reduce the potential effects satisfactorily. Measures proposed to address potential 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. Our draft Waste management strategy provides further details of how we propose to deal with construction waste.

Outcome N

in connection with the identification and mitigation of issues.

- the issues focus on the removal of tunnel

waste and how this will be moved; there will be significant other works in supporting this operation and these are not considered as issues.

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 20.5.14 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to general comments on the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues Table 20.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction Ref 20.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns Measures to address potential issues are unsatisfactory/unconvincing. Respondent ID 9105LO, 9107LO, 7490, 7709, 7756, 8647, 8653, 8751, 8776, 8783, 8899, 9129, LR9279, LR9280 No. 14 Our response The measures set out in the Chambers Wharf site information paper are intended to provide a broad overview of how we intend to address potential issues associated with the site. Further information can be found in the draft CoCP and PEIR (volume 22). Measures proposed to address likely significant effects are being further developed and considered as part of the environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Please see our response at paragraph 20.3.26 above. Outcome N

20.5.16

Measures to address potential effects are unsatisfactory/irrelevant as the wrong site has been identified/alternatives have not been properly considered. Measures to address potential effects are unsatisfactory because the wrong/not all the issues have been identified.

8647, 8776

20.5.17

8569LO

The key issues set out in the site information paper are intended to provide a broad overview of potential effects and key issues associated with the site during construction. It is

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-25

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref 20.5.18

Objections, issues and concerns Measures to address potential effects are unsatisfactory because the scale and/or significance of the issues has been underestimated/not properly assessed.

Respondent ID 8751

No. 1

Our response not, however, an exhaustive list. Further potential issues associated with the site and measures to address these are set out in the PEIR (volume 22). We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. We believe that the measures set out in the site information paper would address and/or reduce the potential effects satisfactorily. We are developing a CoCP that will set out how we would manage our construction sites to minimise disruption to nearby communities. Measures proposed to address potential likely significant effects are being further developed and considered as part of the environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. We have sought to avoid or eliminate potential likely significant effects wherever possible, both through construction site design and layout and by adopting suitable measures to manage construction activities. 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. We have sought to understand the concerns of residents through our consultation process. The proposals presented at phase two consultation reflect the issues raised by local residents during previous consultation activities. The purpose of phase two consultation was to further explore the issues and concerns of local residents to ensure that, where possible, their principal concerns are taken into account. 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. Our DCO application must be accompanied by a Consultation report that explains how we have responded to public consultation, including explanations of instances where we have not proposed any change to the design in response to consultation comments. The process is intended to be open and transparent and to ensure that project promoters give careful consideration to

Outcome N

20.5.19

Thames Water cannot guarantee that potential effects will be satisfactorily addressed and/or reduced

8768LO, 7166, 8899

20.5.20

Measures proposed to address potential effects may minimise or manage them, but they cannot be eliminated/prevented.

8569LO

20.5.21

Measures to address potential effects do not 9269 address the real concerns of local residents.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-26

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response consultation responses and, where necessary, adjust their proposals accordingly.

Outcome

20.5.22

Consultation feedback does not appear to have been taken into account by Thames Water.

7166

An integral part of the pre-application process is the legal N requirement that we consult with the communities and stakeholders in the vicinity of the tunnel route and the sites we intend to use to construct and operate the project. We must take account of all the comments received in response to consultation. We also need to comply with advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate and guidance from the Secretary of State in respect of pre-application consultation requirements. The process is intended to be open and transparent and ensure that project promoters give careful consideration to consultation responses and, where necessary, adjust their proposals accordingly. We are committed to this approach. At phase one consultation, we consulted on need to reduce the amount of sewage entering the River Thames, the option of a storage and transfer tunnel to address CSO discharges, the route of the tunnel, and our preferred construction sites. We also sought views our initial design proposals for the sites. Consistent with the legal requirement, the scheme we are consulting on at phase two consultation takes account of the responses we received at phase one consultation and further engineering design refinements identified by the project team. 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, a Consultation report will accompany it. The Consultation report will set out how we have taken into account the feedback received across all phases of consultation. Please see our response at paragraph 20.3.26 above. If a Development Consent Order is granted we anticipate a series of requirements (similar to planning conditions) that would control the development. We expect that the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with the application would be included in these requirements. We have sought to avoid or eliminate potential likely significant effects wherever possible, both by developing robust technical solutions to potential issues such as odour, and through our proposals for the permanent site design and layout. N

20.5.23 20.5.24

Identified issues can/should be avoided/ addressed by changing the preferred site. Responses to key issues provide no guarantee that effects will be managed, controlled and/or avoided.

8795LO, 7756, LR9112 7996LO, 8887LO, 7709

3 3

20.5.25

Other issues and comments relating to measures to address construction issues included: - construction impacts must be minimised at every stage of construction

GLA, 8560LO, 8849

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-27

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns - the final remediation package should be more aggressive

Respondent ID

No.

Our response We are also developing a CoCP that will set out how we would manage our construction sites to minimise disruption to nearby communities. Measures proposed to address potential likely significant effects are being further developed and considered as part of the environmental impact assessment. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. It was imperative to provide a balanced analysis in our consultation material and we do not agree that the material was inaccurate, misleading or biased in our favour. All the material presented contained necessary information for consultees to understand our proposals and make their own judgements. Cost is one of the considerations that inform site assessments, but it is not an overriding factor that outweighs all other engineering, planning, environmental, community, property and wider economic considerations. High acquisition costs alone would not outweigh positive considerations such as use of brownfield land, conformity with planning policy, and the ability to construct/operate the proposed works on the site. Equally, a low value site would not become our preferred site if there were significant planning, environmental or community concerns associated with its use. In determining our preferred site, we made a balanced judgement taking planning, environment, engineering, property and community considerations into account.

Outcome N

- issues are presented in a manner that is

intended to support the project; Thames Water will do or say anything to that end

- there is no evidence that Thames Water is

genuinely engaging with local communities, rather than being driven by profit.

Air quality and odour


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour Table 20.5.6 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour during construction Ref 20.5.26 Supportive and neutral comments Proposals will ensure that odour is managed satisfactorily. Respondent ID 7243 No. 1 Our response Your comments are noted and welcomed.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour Table 20.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during construction Ref 20.5.27 Objections, issues and concerns Potential effects will be greater than those set out in consultation, for example the smallest change can affect people with breathing difficulties; there was severe dust from the demolition of the previous Respondent ID 7761, 8751 No. 2 Our response As part of our PEIR (volume 22, section 4) we assessed the likely significant impacts on air quality, traffic and residential amenity based on a methodology that has been discussed and agreed with the LBS. The PEIR (volume 22, section 4) which covered air quality and odour topics, reflects the dust Outcome N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-28

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref 20.5.28

Objections, issues and concerns buildings. It is not clear what the scale of the effect will be/the assessment to date is very vague for reasons including: there is no way to quantify the outlined measures, eg 'air and dust control measures' - does this mean that there will be no potential for dust nuisance effects? The impact of pollution from the works (noise, odour, breakdown, spillage, flooding) during and after construction needs a lot more explanation. Dust and dirt arising from construction activities.

Respondent ID 7233, 7767

No. 2

Our response Outcome mitigation measures within the draft CoCP. While we acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment, we N believe that sufficient information was available for the purposes of our phase two consultation. We are preparing a full assessment for submission in the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application.

20.5.29

See annex D of this report

252

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. Our draft CoCP confirms that an Air management plan will be prepared and implemented for each site to control dust emissions, and proposed techniques would be in line with best practice guidelines. Our preliminary assessment of likely significant air quality effects, as reported in our PEIR (volume 22, section 4), did not identify any significant effects at residential or other sensitive receptors (such as schools) near this site. Further assessment of nearby properties will be undertaken as part of our on-going environmental impact assessment work and this will be reported in the Environmental statement submitted with our DCO application. We have set out measures in our draft CoCP that would be adopted to limit vehicle and plant emissions, including using low emission vehicles, turning off engines when not needed and minimising vehicle movements around the site. Our preliminary assessment, outlined in our draft PEIR (volume 22, section 4), stated that with these measures in place we do not expect any significant local air quality effects arising from vehicle and plant emissions at this construction site. We are preparing a full assessment for submission in the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application, which will include dispersion modelling. Dispersion modelling will assess the potential impacts of the construction phase at all proposed sites for the relevant short- and long-term NO2 and PM10 air quality objectives. Our preliminary assessment of likely significant air quality effects, as reported in our PEIR (volume 22, section 4), did not identify any significant effects at residential or other sensitive receptors identified near this site, including commercial/offices and St Michaels Roman Catholic Secondary School. Further assessment of nearby properties

20.5.30

Effect of construction traffic emissions on air quality.

GLA, LC, 8795LO, 13379LO, 11001, 11002, 11003, 11004, 11005, 11006, 11007, 8412, LR11000, LR13381

14

20.5.31 20.5.32

Effect of construction site activities and plant LR13381 emissions on air quality. General effect of construction activities on air quality. (LR)LBS, 7366, 7761, 8194, 9007, 9023, 9337

1 7

N N

20.5.33

Effect of reduced air quality on residential amenity.

LR13381

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-29

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response will be undertaken as part of our on-going environmental impact assessment work and this will be reported in the Environmental statement submitted with our DCO application. Our draft CoCP confirms that Air quality management plans will be prepared and implemented for each site, and proposed techniques would be in line with best practice guidelines. Our PEIR (volume 22, section 4) considered the likely significant effects of dust arising from the construction site. The report concluded that the effects of dust arising from construction would be reduced by the implementation of measures contained in the draft CoCP. While not a formal requirement we are also preparing a Health impact assessment for submission with the application. The health impact assessment will assess the full range of potential health and well-being effects of the project on identified vulnerable groups.

Outcome

20.5.34

7262LO, 8303LO, 8410LO, 8561LO, Effects on health arising from dust, odour, 24 air pollution and reduced air quality including 8887LO, 9044LO, 9254LO, LR9386LO, respiratory illnesses, asthma and bronchitis. 8803LO, 7165, 7166, 7402, 7761, 8266, 8299, 8431, 8639, 8712, 8751, 8783, 9074, 9188, LR8975, LR9116

20.5.35

Effect of odour arising from construction activities.

LC, 7996LO, 8801LO, 7756, 8225, 8320, 16 8486, 8751, 8989, 9149, 9288, 9476, 9496, 9497, LR9112, LR9279

It is not anticipated that the construction works would give N rise to any significant odour effects, as set out in our PEIR (volume 22, section 4). It is not expected that sewage odours would be emitted since there is no sewer interception at this location. 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. We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. As part of this, we carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. This included our draft CoCP and PEIR (volume 22, section 4). We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient. We have completed a preliminary environmental assessment of the likely significant effects of the proposed development, which is set out in our PEIR (volume 22, section 4), that considers the effects of our construction on air quality, dust, odour, noise and vibration, which singularly or collectively might be classed as 'pollution'. The PEIR did not identify any significant effects at residential or other sensitive receptors (such as residents, schools, school children and other riverside users) near this site. 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 which sets out measures for managing our works, including sections on N

20.5.36

More information is needed on air quality and odour effects.

9083LO, 7243, 8680

20.5.37

Effect of pollution on residents, school children and other riverside users.

See annex D of this report

376

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-30

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response 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 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 20.5.38 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address air quality and odour issues during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour Table 20.5.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction Ref 20.5.39 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on mitigation, including: - atmospheric pollution - clarification on the performance of an enclosure when the information is available. Mitigation proposed to address the issues is inadequate/insufficient; there is no provision for adequate recourse for atmospheric pollution. No guarantee that the mitigation technology proposed will be delivered or function as stated, including dust and smell. Respondent ID 9092LO, 9337 No. 2 Our response Outcome

20.5.40

8552LO, 8801LO, 9093LO, LR9272LO, 8299, 8624

Details of likely significant impacts for the site were set out in N the PEIR (volume 22, section 4) as part of our phase two consultation. This identified that at this site no specific mitigation measures in addition to the CoCP would be required for air quality, odour or dust issues. We would require our contractor to comply with the CoCP in the construction contract. Our Environmental statement will N provide a full assessment of the likely significant effects of construction on air quality, odour and dust and will be submitted with our DCO application. If a Development Consent Order is granted we anticipate a series of requirements (similar to planning conditions) that would control the development. We expect that the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental statement and CoCP that will be submitted with the application would form part of these requirements. Our draft CoCP sets out a range of measures that would be adopted to minimise the likely significant effects of dust including measures to reduce dust formation, re-suspension and presence, including monitoring and recording of dustgenerating activities and site training for our construction workforce. Suitable site hoarding would be provided and a site enclosure is proposed during the peak construction phase. These measures are in line with best practice guidelines and may include wheel-washing where appropriate. Further details will be set out in the CoCP that we will submit with our DCO application. We can confirm that an assessment of the likely significant N

20.5.41

7996LO, 8801LO, 8428, 9358

20.5.42

Enclose construction activities to minimise dust and air pollution migration.

11003, 8781

20.5.43

Undertake an environmental impact

(LR)LBS

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-31

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns assessment including an air quality assessment.

Respondent ID

No.

Our response effects on air quality and odour is being completed as part of our environmental impact assessment. Preliminary findings were published in our PEIR (volume 22, section 4) 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. As detailed in our draft CoCP, our contractor would be required to ensure that all plant is operated in line with relevant standards.

Outcome

20.5.44

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

GLA, (LR)LBS, 8781

- S106 to require baseline air quality

monitoring and a working group


- machinery and plant must be to European

N N

emissions standards
- dust filtration plant/facility.

Construction working hours and programme


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction working hours and programme 20.5.45 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to construction working hours and programme. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme Table 20.5.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme Ref 20.5.46 Objections, issues and concerns Construction programme is too long/ concerned about the duration of construction as it is important that the timeframe is minimised. Respondent ID 8562LO, 8564LO, 8569LO, 8571LO, 8768LO, 8795LO, 8801LO, 8802LO, 9093LO, 9147LO, 9254LO, LR9379LO, LR9386LO, 10967, 11001, 11002, 11003, 11004, 11005, 11006, 11007, 13484, 7243, 7490, 7709, 8062, 8251, 8252, 8253, 8255, 8256, 8258, 8259, 8260, 8265, 8266, 8270, 8271, 8272, 8273, 8297, 8298, 8299, 8300, 8386, 8393, 8394, 8415, 8416, 8417, 8418, 8419, 8420, 8423, 8426, 8428, No. 84 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 (section 22) and we hope 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

20-32

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

20.5.47

Extended working hours are unnecessary/ unreasonable.

Respondent ID No. 8431, 8432, 8486, 8558, 8566, 8567, 8611, 8653, 8751, 8771, 8783, 8951, 8953, 9193, 9198, 9333, 9334, 9353, 9357, 9387, LR11000, LR13381, LR13472, LR8422, LR9136, LR9341, LR9352, LR9360 9107LO 1

Our response

Outcome

20.5.48

Concern that construction will take longer than anticipated; more likely to be seven to ten years than three.

7621, 8647, 8653, 8953, 9357

We plan to carry out the majority of works within standard working hours, which are 8am-6pm weekdays and 8am-1pm Saturdays. There would be occasions, however, when we would need extended working hours to carry out works that take longer than a standard working day. Extended working hours would be agreed with the LBS and we would notify local residents in advance. We will have to undertake continuous 24-hour working during the tunnelling and secondary lining phase of the work, but we will limit noise as much as possible at night and will not be moving HGVs in or out of the site. The programming of works at all sites will be configured to minimise the duration of works and associated disruption to the local area where possible. The length of the construction period as set out in the consultation documents was the period assessed in the PEIR that works would be underway and it is hoped that in many cases there will be periods during which there will be no activity or less intensive activity on some sites. We are also required by the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) to address the discharge of untreated wastewater into the Thames Tideway as quickly as possible.

20.5.49

Thames Water has shown no ability to 8303LO, 8270 control any of the contractors that have used the site so far who made noise early in the morning adjacent to residential properties. Proposed working hours are too long. Concerned about weekend working hours/ construction seven days a week. Concerned about overnight/24-hour working hours. Other working hours issues, including: - we would have to have conveyors running 24 hours a day, seven days a week for three years 8796LO, 9147LO, 7233, 9193, 9198 7460LO, 8303LO, 8552LO, 8569LO, 9093LO, 9107LO, 8297, 8298, 8299, 8300, 8486 7460LO, 8303LO, 8552LO, 8569LO, 9093LO, 9107LO, 8194, 8297, 8298, 8299, 8300, 8486, 8639, 8783 9092LO, 9337, 9349

We will investigate your concerns regarding previous activities at this site. As part of our CoCP, our contractor would provide community liaison personnel who would be able to provide you with information and be the first line of response to resolve any issues of concern. As detailed in our site information paper, at this site we plan to carry out site set-up, shaft construction, construction of other structures and site completion within standard working hours, which are 8am-6pm weekdays and 8am-1pm Saturdays. The shaft construction may require occasional extended standard working hours for reasons such as undertaking large concrete pours, delivering abnormal, large and heavy loads at times when there is reduced traffic. Weekend working hours in addition to the standard working hours would be agreed with the LBS and we would notify the local residents beforehand. This site has been selected as a main tunnel drive site,

20.5.50 20.5.51

5 11

N N

20.5.52

14

20.5.53

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-33

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref 20.5.54

Objections, issues and concerns


-

Respondent ID

No.

issues arising from extended working hours which include the arrival/departure times of construction workers concerns regarding the safety implications of 24-hour seven-day construction.

20.5.55

Our response Outcome which means that we would need to undertake continuous N tunnelling in order to excavate and build the tunnel. Tunnelling would need to be carried out continuously in order to minimise settlement. It would also take longer if we N did not tunnel continuously. During continuous working hours, we would construct an acoustic building over the top of the shaft that would reduce the impact of noise and dust on the area. The movement of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) to and from the site would be limited in order to minimise likely significant environmental effects. For example, in residential areas, HGV movements may be limited to the daytime in order to minimise noise at night. In nonresidential areas, HGV movements may take place primarily at night to minimise the impact on the road network.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of construction working hours and programme 20.5.56 20.5.57 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of construction working hours and programme. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of construction working hours and programme No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of construction working hours and programme.

Construction site design and layout


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction site design and layout Table 20.5.10 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction site design and layout Ref 20.5.58 20.5.59 Supportive and neutral comments Support the construction site layout. Support the enclosure of the working area. Respondent ID 9251 8781 No. 1 1 Our response Your feedback comments are noted and welcomed.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout Table 20.5.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout Ref 20.5.60 20.5.61 20.5.62 Objections, issues and concerns The construction site layout has been developed to minimise the site area. Concerned about the extent of the construction site for phase two. Location/existence of the cofferdam which will extend 50m into the river. Respondent ID 8802LO, 8899, 9497 8572 8303LO, 8410LO, 8562LO, 8564LO, 8632LO, 9092LO, 9147LO, LR9272LO, LR9386LO, 10968, 11001, 11002, 11003, 11004, 11005, 11006, 11007, 13484, 8062, 8252, 8259, 8260, 8265, 8266, 8270, 8272, 8273, 8300, 8306, 8393, 8394, 8415, 8418, 8419, 8420, 8423, 8426, 8428, 8431, 8432, 8557, 8558, 8566, 8567, 8753, 8899, 8953, 9074, No. 3 1 60 Our response Outcome

The construction site layout has been developed to minimise N its area. N Construction would require a temporary cofferdam to be built N into the foreshore to accommodate the works required at this site, including transportation of materials by barge. The cofferdam would be removed at the end of the construction period and the riverside would be reinstated to its historic alignment. The project would also contribute to the regeneration of this part of the riverside, which would deliver benefits to the local area.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-34

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

20.5.63

Concerned about the layout of construction works within the site. Concerned about the location of the proposed construction site access.

Respondent ID 9333, 9334, 9353, 9488, 9496, 9497, LR11000, LR8422, LR9136, LR9341, LR9352, LR9360 LR13381

No.

Our response

Outcome

Your feedback comments are noted. The construction site layout has been developed to minimise its size while allowing the flexibility required by a contractor. The site access on Chambers Street has been chosen to minimise the impact on adjoining properties. It would be located at a centre-point of the site and not directly adjacent to residential properties. The detail of the construction layout would be developed by the contractor and may differ from that shown in the consultation material, provided that any environmental effects are managed and that the main construction activities are located within the site boundary included in our DCO application. The construction layout provided at phase two consultation is indicative and would be further developed by the contractor, which means that it may differ from what is currently shown. We would, however, ensure that the layout is designed to minimise potential impacts on neighbouring properties. We believe that we have provided sufficient information in respect of construction for the purposes of phase two consultation. This included a number of project information papers, an overview of key construction phases and issues in the site information paper. Further detailed information will be provided in the drawings and documents that will accompany our DCO application. In general, main tunnel sites would be located on land due to a range of engineering constraints and requirements. Only where it has proved difficult to identify suitable landbased sites have we explored the potential for siting main tunnel sites wholly or partially in or on the foreshore of the River Thames. Further information can be found in the Site selection background technical paper, which is available on our website. At Chambers Wharf, where we would extend into the foreshore, one of the benefits is that barge movements would not be tide constrained which would provide more flexibility during construction. It should also be noted that the area of the construction site shown in our drawings is the maximum area that the site would extend into the foreshore and it is possible that the contractor might choose to re-configure the site in a way that minimises the part of the site in the foreshore.

20.5.64

9147LO

20.5.65

No guarantee that the eventual construction site layout will reflect the layout in the site information papers.

8303LO

20.5.66

Effect of construction layout on neighbouring 9083LO, 9084LO, 9085LO, 9086LO buildings/structures (Luna House, Axis and Temple Wharfs).

20.5.67

Need more information on construction site layout specifically the distance from Axis Court and the relative height of works/equipment.

8426

20.5.68

Existence and/or size of structures in the foreshore of the River Thames and the impact on the riverside.

9083LO, 9084LO, 9085LO, 9086LO, 8899

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-35

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref 20.5.69

Objections, issues and concerns Concern that the wharf will become a marshalling area for barges from upstream with amenity effects.

Respondent ID 8803LO, 9092LO, 8119

No. 3

Our response

Outcome

Your comments are noted. We do not currently propose to N use Chambers Wharf as a marshalling area. Our Transport project information paper considers the approach further and the potential need for a transfer site in the estuary in addition to the site currently identified.

Suggestions for construction site design and layout Table 20.5.12 Suggestions for construction site design and layout Ref 20.5.70 Suggestions for construction site design and layout Construction site design and layout should incorporate appropriate screening. Respondent ID 9084LO, 9085LO, 9086LO No. 3 Our response Your comments are noted and welcomed. We currently propose to use a high quality site hoarding for screening during the construction phase. We are considering further noise attenuation measures such as screening at this site. Existing flood defence lines would be maintained during the construction. Therefore there would be no decline in flood protection. Outcome C

20.5.71

Specific design amendment; a continuous EA line of flood defence must be maintained during construction of the cofferdam and demolition of the existing wharf and defence.

Historic environment
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment 20.5.72 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 20.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during construction Ref 20.5.73 20.5.74 Objections, issues and concerns General effect of construction activities on local heritage. Effect of construction activities on the St Saviour's Dock and Rotherhithe conservation areas. Effect of construction activities on the adjacent/ nearby conservation area. Respondent ID (LR)LBS, 9476, LR9136 (LR)LBS No. 3 1 Our response We acknowledged that there are conservation areas to the west and east of this site and listed buildings in the area in our phase two consultation material. However, as the site is currently a cleared redevelopment site and is enclosed by hoardings, we believe that at present it makes little contribution to the setting of these heritage assets. The location of our permanent structures would not be visible from any of these assets due to their location and scale in relation to the existing and proposed buildings surrounding the site. In developing our proposals for this site we will continue to take into account the contribution it could make to the historic setting. We are undertaking a heritage assessment as part of our environmental impact assessment that will identify any likely significant effects of our proposed construction activities and any mitigation required to address such effects. This will be presented in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Outcome N N

20.5.75 20.5.76

8410LO, 8561LO, 8803LO, 8712

4 3

N N

Effect of construction activities on listed (LR)LBS, LR9272LO, 8836 buildings or structures, including Riverside Primary School and Bermondsey Wall West. Effect of construction activities on the setting 7260LO of the River Thames.

20.5.77

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-36

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response Our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) identifies that works to or in the vicinity of listed buildings would be undertaken in accordance with all required consents and licences and that protection measures would be put in place at the start of the works. We would also notify English Heritage and the local planning authority prior to undertaking works.

Outcome

20.5.78

Effect of construction activities on archaeology.

EH, (LR)LBS, LR13498

We recognise that the site is in the locally designated N Borough, Bermondsey and River Archaeological Priority Zone. Our phase two consultation material included a preliminary assessment of likely significant archaeological effects, as detailed in the PEIR (volume 22, section 7). Our preliminary assessment identified the high potential of palaeo-environmental remains that could be of low or medium significance. The desk-based study of the site suggests that we do not expect to find any heritage assets of very high significance that might merit a mitigation strategy of permanent preservation in situ. An assessment of the likely significant effects on the historic environment is being completed as part of our environmental impact assessment. We are consulting with English Heritage 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 and a full assessment of the likely significant effects of the project on the historic environment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. As set out in our draft CoCP, we would put procedures in place to ensure that construction works are appropriately monitored to identify and record any archaeological finds. An Assessment of the Local Setting of the Tower of London N and Guidelines for its Management was published in August 2010 by the Tower of London WHS Consultative Committee. This document identifies (at page 8) the area that constitutes the setting of the WHS, which extends to a point on the River Thames equivalent to Maguire Street. The setting is also identified in the WHS Management Plan (para 2.4.6, page 38). As the site is not in the defined setting of the WHS, we conclude that our works would not affect the designation. We also note that the designation relates to the Tower of London and not Tower Bridge.

20.5.79

Effect of construction activities on Tower of London/Tower Bridge WHS

(LR)LBS, LR9272LO, 13484, 8300, 8649, 9168, 10893, 10980

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment 20.5.80 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-37

20 Chambers Wharf

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment Table 20.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction Ref 20.5.81 Objections, issues and concerns More information is needed on mitigation, including: - heritage effects - archaeology strategy. 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 and the LBS as part of this process. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement and Heritage statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Additionally, our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) sets out a range of measures to safeguard the historic environment during construction. Such measures include confirmation that works close to listed buildings would be undertaken in accordance with all requirements set out in the DCO and that protection measures, as required, would be put in place at the start of the works. We would also notify English Heritage and the LBS prior to undertaking works and will continue to engage with them closely on the planning of the works. 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 and the LBS as part of this process. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement and Heritage statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Comments in relation to the Dolphin structure are noted. N Effects on buried heritage assets in the foreshore could include the effects from scouring from changes in river flows due to new infrastructure in the channel, as detailed in our N PEIR (volume 22, section 7). An assessment of the likely significant effects on the historic environment is being completed as part of our environmental impact assessment. We are consulting with English Heritage and the LBS as part of this process. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement and Heritage statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.

20.5.82

Undertake a heritage impact assessment (environmental impact assessment).

(LR)LBS

20.5.83

Other heritage mitigation including: - take care with barge movements close to Dolphin structure
- Assess the impact of tidal erosion on

(LR)LBS

foreshore archaeology.

Land quality and contamination


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

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-38

20 Chambers Wharf

Lighting
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to lighting 20.5.85 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to lighting during construction Objections, issues and concerns in relation to lighting Table 20.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to lighting during construction Ref 20.5.86 20.5.87 20.5.88 Objections, issues and concerns Effect of lighting on quality of life given proposed 24-hour working at this site. Concerned about light pollution from night time working. Effect of construction lighting on sensitive receptors such as the Riverside Primary School and the St Michaels RC Secondary School. Required illumination on the site for activities during the evening and night time. Respondent ID 8802LO 8303LO, 8571LO, 9147LO, 7804, 8299, 8750, 8953, 9357, LR9112 8303LO No. 1 9 1 Our response As set out in our draft CoCP, construction lighting would be provided to ensure the safety and security of the site and would be designed to comply with the provisions of BS5489, Code of Practice for the Design of Road Lighting, where applicable. For example, the lighting would be located and directed so as to minimise intrusion into occupied residential properties and on sensitive areas. Further details on lighting can also be found in our Managing construction project information paper. Additionally a Lighting management plan would be prepared by our contractor. If a Development Consent Order is granted we anticipate a series of requirements (similar to planning conditions) that would control the development. We expect that the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with the application would form part of these requirements. In addition we would oblige our contractor to comply with the CoCP in the construction contract, which would require them to adopt appropriate measures to avoid the creation of statutory nuisances, where necessary. As part of the site would be in the foreshore we would agree appropriate lighting for this part of the site with the PLA. Where appropriate, we would also provide lighting to the site boundary to ensure that safe routes are provided in line with industry standards. During working hours, artificial lighting would be used as necessary. Part B of our CoCP, which will be available as part of our DCO application submission, will set out further details on lighting during construction. Outcome N N N

20.5.89

9337

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of lighting 20.5.90 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of lighting during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of lighting Table 20.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of lighting during construction Ref 20.5.91 Objections, issues and concerns Mitigation proposed to address the issue is inadequate/insufficient; light pollution could be better addressed and is relevant given that the site will operate 24 hours seven Respondent ID 7451, 8299 No. 2 Our response As set out in our draft CoCP, construction lighting would be provided to ensure the safety and security of the site and would be designed to comply with the provisions of BS5489, Code of Practice for the Design of Road Lighting, where Outcome N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-39

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref 20.5.92

Objections, issues and concerns days a week. Lighting should be appropriately considered and planned for as part of the CoCP.

Respondent ID 8303LO

No. 1

Our response Outcome applicable. For example, the lighting would be located and directed so as to minimise intrusion into occupied residential N properties and on sensitive areas. Further details on lighting can also be found in our Managing construction project information paper. Additionally a Lighting management plan will be prepared by our contractor. The plan would set out appropriate lighting solutions for the site. As part of the site is in the foreshore we would agree appropriate lighting for this part of the site with the PLA. Where appropriate we would also provide lighting to the site boundary to ensure that safe routes are provided in line with industry standards. During working hours artificial lighting would be used as necessary. Part B of our CoCP which will be available as part of our DCO application submission will set out further details on lighting during construction.

Natural environment (aquatic)


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) 20.5.93 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the natural environment (aquatic). Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) Table 20.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction Ref 20.5.94 Objections, issues and concerns General effect on local wildlife arising from construction activities. Respondent ID 11001 No. 1 Our response Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects on wildlife associated with the construction of the tunnel is contained in our PEIR (volume 22, section 5) and considers the effects in terms of the aquatic habitats. The scheme has been designed to minimise likely significant effects on wildlife and habitats where possible and, where effects have been identified, mitigation has been built into the design. The likely significant effects of the development on habitats will be assessed and reported in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of the application. The CoCP that will be submitted with the application would ensure that works are undertaken in compliance with applicable legislation and with relevant nature conservation policies and guidance, including the Mayor of Londons Biodiversity strategy and local biodiversity action plans. Where species are protected by specific legislation, approved guidance would be followed, appropriate mitigation proposed and any necessary licences or consents obtained. As part of our PEIR (volume 22, section 5) we assessed the likely significant construction effects of the proposed development on aquatic ecology including the foreshore Outcome N

20.5.95 20.5.96

Effect of construction activities on fish. Encroachment into the River Thames foreshore will have drastic effects on the

8887LO, 9007 8562LO, 8558, 9074, 8653

1 3

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-40

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref 20.5.97

Objections, issues and concerns ecology and the tideway itself. Effect of construction activities on foreshore habitat(s) (although it is acknowledged that there is poor species diversity). In particular, the cofferdam would obliterate sensitive river ecology and habitat. Effect of construction activities on river habitat(s).

Respondent ID GLA, (LR)LBS, 7621, 8558, 8786, 9007, 9074, 9198, LR9491

No. 8

20.5.98

(LR)LBS, 8456, 8753, 9074, 9198, LR10972

Our response habitat. The PEIR considers the likely significant effects on the foreshore and River Thames and recognises a number of impacts, including those associated with a new mooring and any necessary channel reshaping or dredging. Many of the effects would be controlled through measures set out in our draft CoCP. It is also noted that many effects would be temporary and the habitat would recover following removal of the temporary structures. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We are preparing a full aquatic ecology assessment for submission in the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application.

Outcome N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) 20.5.99 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during construction Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) Table 20.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID LR9491 No. 1 Our response Many of the likely significant effects during the construction phase would be temporary and it is anticipated that the habitat would recover following removal of the temporary structures. On completion of our works there would be potential additional new or improved habitat on the foreshore that is currently covered by the jetty. We do not believe that it is necessary to provide any compensation habitat for the construction phase of the works. Outcome N

20.5.100 Provision of compensation habitat, including refuges for fish and other species.

Natural environment (terrestrial)


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 20.5.19 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID 7925 7157 7101, 8791 7157, 8306 No. 1 1 2 2 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.

20.5.101 Note that no mature trees need to be removed. 20.5.102 Support for replacement of trees. 20.5.103 Site will have less environmental/ecological impact. 20.5.104 Site will result in fewer trees being lost; utilising this site will not result in the loss of substantial trees which offer great visual amenity and ameliorate the effects of air pollution from the very busy Jamaica Road (A200).

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-41

20 Chambers Wharf

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 20.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 7621 No. 1 Our response We have completed a preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the proposed development and this was presented in our PEIR (volume 22, section 6) at phase two consultation, which includes an assessment of the terrestrial ecological effects of the development. We are preparing a full environmental impact assessment that will be presented in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. The methodology for our assessment has been agreed with the LBS. No trees would be lost in these works. Outcome N

20.5.105 It is not clear what the scale of the effect will be; the assessment to date is very vague as the environmental impact of the project has not adequately assessed.

20.5.106 Loss of mature trees. 20.5.107 General effect of construction activities on local wildlife.

8753 13379LO, 8410LO, 8561LO, 8803LO, 8712, 8753, LR13498

1 7

Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects N on wildlife associated with the construction of the tunnel is contained in our PEIR (volume 22, section 6) and sets out the likely significant effects in terms of notable species, including bats and birds, and their habitats. The scheme has been designed to minimise effects on wildlife and habitats where possible and, where likely significant effects have been identified mitigation, has been built into the design. The likely significant effects will be assessed and reported in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of our DCO application. The CoCP that will be submitted with the application would ensure that works are undertaken in compliance with applicable legislation and with relevant nature conservation policies and guidance, including the Mayor of Londons Biodiversity strategy and local biodiversity action plans. Where species are protected by specific legislation, approved guidance would be followed, appropriate mitigation proposed and any necessary licences or consents obtained. Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects on wildlife associated with the construction of the tunnel is contained in our PEIR (volume 22, section 6) which considered the effects in terms of land-based habitats. The scheme has been designed to minimise effects on wildlife and habitats where possible and, where likely significant effects have been identified, mitigation has been built into the design. The likely significant effects of the development on habitats will be assessed and reported in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part our DCO application. The CoCP that will be submitted with the application would ensure that works are undertaken in compliance with applicable legislation and with relevant nature conservation policies and guidance, including the Mayor of Londons Biodiversity strategy and local N N

20.5.108 Effect on terrestrial habitat(s); severance of green ribbon networks. 20.5.109 Environmental/ecological impact comment: insufficient confidence that the impact on the natural environment has been adequately considered.

8753 8303LO, 8410LO, 8562LO, 8563LO, 8564LO, 8571LO, 8796LO, 8801LO, 8803LO, 9093LO, LR9386LO, 10835, 10920, 11001, 11002, 11003, 11004, 11005, 11006, 11007, 13484, 8062, 8225, 8251, 8252, 8253, 8255, 8256, 8258, 8259, 8260, 8265, 8266, 8268, 8270, 8271, 8272, 8273, 8299, 8300, 8386, 8393, 8394, 8415, 8416, 8417, 8418, 8419, 8420, 8423, 8426, 8428, 8430, 8431, 8432, 8486, 8557, 8558, , 8566, 8567, 8568, 8572, 8611, 8718, 8721, 8738, 8783, 8786, 8927, 8951, 8953,

1 36

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-42

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID 9074, 9149, 9188, 9333, 9334, 9357, LR11000, LR13472, LR8422, LR9116, LR9136, LR9289, LR9341, LR9352, LR9360 LR9491

No.

Our response biodiversity action plans. Where species are protected by specific legislation, approved guidance would be followed, appropriate mitigation proposed and any necessary licences or consents obtained. We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. As part of this, we carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. This included our draft CoCP and PEIR. We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient. Further assessment will be undertaken as part of our ongoing environmental impact assessment work and this will be reported in the Environmental statement to be submitted with our DCO application.

Outcome

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

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

LR9447

Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects N on wildlife associated with the construction of the tunnel is contained in our PEIR (volume 22, section 6) which identified the existing buildings on the site in terms of potential habitats. The likely significant effects of the development on habitats 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) 20.5.112 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 20.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 9092LO No. 1 Our response Details of proposed mitigation measures and initial ecology surveys for the site were set out in the PEIR (volume 22, section 6) as part of our phase two consultation. As we have completed our surveys, we have confirmed the presence or absence of species and habitats and developed mitigation measures as necessary. Our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) sets out a range of measures that would be implemented to control and limit disturbance. Relevant measures will be assessed in our environmental impact assessment. Where the assessment identifies significant effects, further mitigation would be proposed. All construction activities would be contained within our proposed construction site. An assessment of the likely significant effects on land-based ecology is being completed as part of our environmental Outcome N

20.5.113 More information is needed on mitigation; specifically environmental pollution.

20.5.114 Locate construction activities within the site to avoid sensitive and designated areas. 20.5.115 Undertake an environmental impact

LR9491 8953

1 1

N N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-43

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns assessment.

Respondent ID

No.

Our response 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 have completed a preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the proposed development and this was presented in our PEIR (volume 22, section 6) at phase two consultation. Measures are likely to be required, including replacement planting to mitigate effects on birds, bats and invertebrates as compensation for land-based habitat. We are preparing a full environmental impact assessment, the findings and conclusions of which will be presented in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.

Outcome

20.5.116 Other natural environment mitigation included: - maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity through an effective mitigation package
- should take steps to secure the long-term

LR9447, LR9491

protection of any protected species which may be impacted.

Noise and vibration


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to noise and vibration 20.5.117 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 20.5.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. 5 Our response Outcome

20.5.118 Potential noise and vibration effects will be 8225, 8297, 8417, 8751, LR9112 greater than those set out in the consultation material. 20.5.119 It is not clear what the scale of the effect will be; the assessment to date is very vague. (LR)LBS

Our PEIR (volume 22, section 9) sets out our initial N qualitative assessment of likely significant noise and vibration effects from construction site activities, noise from construction traffic on roads outside the site and noise and N vibration from operation of the site. The assessment embeds the proposals in our draft CoCP. The PEIR assessment used the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) London noise maps. The Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application will include a full assessment of noise and vibration that will be completed in line with the methodology that is compliant with BS5228, BS6472 and BS7385 and has been agreed with the LBS. The draft CoCP also states that our contractor would be required to apply for Section 61 consents (s.61) under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. These would set out specific working methods and the measures to minimise noise and vibration as well as any appropriate monitoring measures to be agreed with local authority environmental health officers. As set out in our Chambers Wharf site information paper the C contractor would be required to implement noise and vibration control measures at the site, in line with the C requirements of the CoCP. Our contractor would be required

20.5.120 Noise and vibration from above-ground construction activity including spoil sorting. 20.5.121 Noise and vibration from underground tunnelling.

7496, 7584 9254LO, 8508, 9319

2 3

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-44

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID See annex D of this report See annex D of this report

No. 355 274

20.5.122 Noise and vibration from construction traffic. 20.5.123 General noise effects arising from construction activities: - PEIR reveals noise levels in excess of tolerable limit of up to 180/bacg - area is more densely populated than King Stair's Gardens and the taller buildings are difficult to mitigate for noise. 20.5.124 General vibration effects arising from construction activities, including damage to buildings.

8552LO, 8801LO, 9147LO, 9254LO, 11003, 7572, 8412, 8753, 9168

Our response 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. Additionally we will implement best practice measures to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment, and use of enclosures to provide acoustic screens. At this site the shaft would also be enclosed. Full details of the measures that will be adopted for the construction will be set out in the CoCP submitted with our DCO application. Our PEIR (volume 22, section 9) sets out our preliminary assessment of likely significant noise and vibration effects from construction site activities, noise from construction traffic on roads outside the site and noise and vibration from operation of the site. The assessment embeds the proposals in our draft CoCP. The PEIR assessment used Defra's London noise maps. The Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application will include an assessment of noise and vibration that will be completed in line with the methodology that is compliant with BS4142 and has been agreed with the LBS.

Outcome N C

20.5.125 Effect on health arising from noise and vibration from construction, particularly for the elderly and children.

7262LO, 8569LO, 8801LO, 8653, 8680, 9161

We are currently undertaking detailed modelling of the likely N significant noise and vibration effects during construction and developing any necessary mitigation measures that may be required. We are also preparing a Health impact assessment to assess any potential likely significant effects on health that may arise from the proposed construction of the development. However we do not anticipate that there would be any substantive effects on health. As set out in our Chambers Wharf site information paper the contractor would be required to implement noise and vibration control measures at the site, in line with the requirements outlined in our draft 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 C C

20.5.126 Proximity to residential area/densely populated area 20.5.127 Proximity to other sensitive receptors including local schools.

7274LO, 7460LO, 7166, 7761, 8486, 8989, LR13381 (LR)LBS, 8563LO, 8795LO, 9105LO, 9147LO, 7019, 7402, 7490, 7572, 8558, 8566, 9074, 9129, 9188, LR13381, LR9111 LC, 8552LO, 8887LO, 7767, 8441, 9082

7 16

20.5.128 Effect on quality of life/residential amenity unless noise/disruption is limited to the hours of 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-45

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response agreed with local authority environmental health officers. Additionally we will implement best practice measures to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment, and use of enclosures to provide acoustic screens. At this site the shaft would also be enclosed. Full details of the measures that will be adopted for the construction will be set out in the CoCP submitted with our DCO application. Residential premises are located to the east, west and south of the proposed site, as well as to the north on the opposite bank of the River Thames. To the east, the nearest residential premises are numbers 8 to 14 Fountain Green Square, 210-212 Bermondsey Wall East and 1 to 13 Bevington Street (odd numbers only). To the south is one of the blocks that makes up the proposed new Chambers Wharf residential development, which has been included at an indicative location in the assessment. To the west is the residential block 10-28 Chambers Street. To the west are two residential blocks of flats known as Axis Court and Luna House. The residential properties and other sensitive receptors selected for the noise and vibration assessment are identified in our PEIR (volume 22, section 9) at Table 9.4.1 and were selected as representative of the range of noise climates in which sensitive receivers are situated around the site. The closest non-residential noise sensitive receptor that has been assessed is St Michaels Catholic College to the south of the site. Our PEIR (volume 22, section 9) sets out our preliminary assessment of noise and vibration from construction site activities, noise from construction traffic on roads outside the site and noise and vibration from operation of the site on sensitive receptors. The assessment embeds the proposals in our draft CoCP. The PEIR assessment used Defra's London noise maps. The Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application will include an assessment of likely significant noise and vibration that will be completed in line with the methodology that is compliant with BS4142 and has been agreed with the LBS. If significant noise effects are identified at a site, we will set out appropriate mitigation measures to provide appropriate attenuation. Our methodology for the assessment of likely significant noise and vibration effects, which has been agreed with the LBS, takes into consideration any relevant developments in the local area so that we can ensure that the cumulative effects of our proposals can be properly assessed. We also note that the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 require an assessment of

Outcome

20.5.129 Cumulative noise and vibration effects with other developments.

(LR)LBS

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-46

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response cumulative effects. Our PEIR (volume 22, section 9) sets out the details of any relevant strategic developments that have been taken into consideration. At this stage we included one of the proposed residential blocks to the south as part of the proposed new Chambers Wharf residential development. We will continue to monitor proposed development in the local area and any relative cumulative effects will be reported in the Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of our DCO application. Chambers Wharf is proposed as a main drive site where there would be continuous tunnelling, although a proportion of our works would be undertaken within standard working hours, as detailed in our site information paper. A preliminary assessment has been carried out that identified that there would likely be significant noise effects during the construction phase at this site, although no significant vibration effects were identified. Further mitigation measures are being developed in response to this. Our contractor would be required to implement noise and vibration control measures at the site, in line with the requirements set out in our draft CoCP. Our contractor would be required to gain prior approval to the construction work from the LBS 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. The measures would be agreed with local authority environmental health officers. Additionally we would implement measures to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment, and the use of enclosures to provide acoustic screens. At this site the shaft and gantry crane would also be enclosed. Details of the measures that will be adopted for the construction will be set out in the CoCP submitted with our DCO application.

Outcome

20.5.130 Effect of continuous (24-hour) working on noise and vibration impacts.

13379LO, 7460LO, 8552LO, 8563LO, 8569LO, 8887LO, 9254LO, 7019, 7366, 7496, 7761, 8225, 8486, 8639, 8764, 8834, 9161, 9163, 9206

19

20.5.131 Duration of construction and effects of associated noise and vibration.

13379LO, 8552LO, 8560LO, 8561LO, 8563LO, 8796LO, 8803LO, 8887LO, 8410LO, 7166, 7366, 7402, 7496, 7584, 8073, 8417, 8486, 8712, 9007

19

The programming of works at all sites will be configured to N minimise the duration of works and associated disruption to the local area where possible. The length of the construction period as set out in the consultation documents was the period assessed in the PEIR that works would be underway and it is hoped that in many cases there will be periods during which there will be no activity or less intensive activity on some sites. During the construction period there would be varying levels of noise and vibration associated with the different activities on site. As detailed in the PEIR (volume 22, section 9), we determined that most stages of work at this site would have

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-47

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response significant effects at receptors around the site. This is based on a worst case assessment were the two noisiest activities in any stage to happen concurrently and over the entire duration of the stage. This is a conservative approach and a full assessment of the effects will be set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application, and this will incorporate appropriate mitigation measures where significant effects are identified. Our PEIR (volume 22, section 9) has identified that there is only one office-based business in close proximity to the site. Our main tunnel (driven from Kirtling Street to Chambers Wharf) would pass under the river at a depth of approximately 57m. As we would use modern tunnelling methods and would be generally much deeper than most other tunnels under London, we believe that at this site the likelihood of any potential ground movement or vibration affecting local businesses or medical equipment would be minimal. The hardest materials to be removed would be redundant concrete manmade structures at or immediately belowground level. Further down, we anticipate that ground conditions on the site of the shaft would consist of layers of sands, gravels and clay that could be excavated using normal excavating equipment. Below these layers we would encounter chalk. On-going ground investigations will provide additional geotechnical information. Our PEIR (volume 22, section 9) sets out our initial qualitative assessment of noise and vibration from construction site activities, noise from construction traffic on roads outside the site and noise and vibration from operation of the site, the assessment embeds the proposals in our draft CoCP. Although we have not presented percentages on levels of disruption, the preliminary assessment was completed in line with a methodology that is compliant with BS5228, BS6472 and BS7385 and has been agreed with the LBS. It is a robust approach to assessing likely noise effects associated with development. We can confirm that our shaft would be constructed using diaphragm wall construction techniques and include a cast in situ secondary lining as detailed in our PEIR (volume 22, section 3). Furthermore, our preliminary assessment did consider the effects of shaft construction on neighbours, which is presented at tables 9.5.1 to 9.5.9 of our PEIR (volume 22, section 9). The Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application will include a full assessment of noise and vibration that will be completed in line with the methodology

Outcome

20.5.132 Will have an adverse impact on businesses such as printing businesses or those with medical equipment due to vibration.

13379LO

20.5.133 More information is needed on noise and vibration including: - how hard is the subsurface here? This would impact on noise levels. - accurate statistics/percentages on levels of disruption and reductions etc for all of the factors listed would have been helpful - the impact of noise pollution from the works during and after construction needs a lot more explanation - there is nothing about the impact of shaft excavation on neighbours - an operation, according to figure 2B, that will take a whole year. Does this involve piling?

7243, 7536, 7767, 8194, 8234

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-48

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response 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. We can confirm that we have been undertaking on-going engagement with the potentially directly affected local authorities and other technical consultees to discuss our proposals for the project. We will take into account all feedback comments received from local authorities in response to the formal consultation in accordance with statutory requirements.

Outcome

20.5.134 Other noise and vibration issue.

9358

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration Table 20.5.23 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.

20.5.135 Mitigation proposed to address the issues is satisfactory (temporary warehouse type buildings over main tunnel drive shafts).

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration Table 20.5.24 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 7800 No. 1 Our response Outcome

20.5.136 Mitigation proposed does not address the issues.

Details of proposed mitigation measures for the site were set N out in the PEIR (volume 22, section 4) as part of our phase two consultation. The PEIR stated that at this site no specific mitigation measures in addition to the CoCP would be required for air quality, odour or dust issues. We would require our contractor to comply with the CoCP in the construction contract. Our Environmental statement will provide a full assessment of the likely significant effects of construction on air quality, odour and dust and will be submitted with our DCO application. If significant effects are identified appropriate mitigation would be proposed and outlined, including site screening and dampening, as appropriate. Our PEIR (volume 22, section 9) sets out our initial qualitative assessment of noise and vibration from construction site activities, noise from construction traffic on roads outside the site and noise and vibration from operation of the site, the assessment embeds the proposals in our draft CoCP. The PEIR assessment used Defra's London noise maps. The Environmental statement that will be submitted with our C

20.5.137 More information is required on mitigation including: - more details on noise enclosure and effect on sound reduction - details of how harm will be mitigated. 20.5.138 Mitigation proposed to address the issues is inadequate/insufficient: - despite the protective cover, noise and

GLA, (LR)LBS, 8571LO, 8887LO, 7233, 8297, 8680, 8764, 9129, 9387,

10

8571LO, 8801LO, 9093LO, 9147LO, LR9271LO, LR9272LO, 7490, 8299, 8306, 8558, 8750, 8783, 8953, 9129

14

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-49

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns light pollution will still be present - 'temporary structure' should be as close to soundproof as possible - noise carries on the river - the purpose-built structure proposed to reduce noise levels will be insufficient.

Respondent ID

No.

20.5.139 Enforce noise limits. 20.5.140 Noise monitoring: permanent sound monitoring facilities should be set up on the site boundary to ensure minimal disruption to local residents. 20.5.141 Noise insulation for affected properties including secondary glazing.

(LR)LBS 8781

1 1

(LR)LBS

Our response DCO application will include a full assessment of noise and vibration 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 (provided at phase two consultation) sets out a range of measures that would be adopted by our contractor, to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment, and use of enclosures to provide acoustic screens. Specific measures such as acoustic suppression systems, operation of equipment in the mode that minimises noise and shutting down equipment when not in use are also identified in our draft CoCP. Our contractor would be required to comply with the requirements of the CoCP. The draft CoCP also states that our contractor would be required to apply for Section 61 consents under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. These would set out specific working methods and the measures to minimise noise and vibration as well as any appropriate monitoring measures to be agreed with local authority environmental health officers. If a Development Consent Order is granted we anticipate a series of requirements (similar to planning conditions) that would control the development. We expect that the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with the application will form part of these requirements.

Outcome

N N

20.5.142 There is no guarantee that the mitigation 7996LO, 8270, 8680 proposed will be delivered/may not work and concerns that the contractors will not be monitored.

20.5.143 Enclosing/covering machinery to reduce noise leaving the site and enclosing the head of the shaft and main lifting and loading operations.

(LR)LBS, 11003

As set out in our site information paper, our contractor would N be required to implement noise and vibration control measures at the site, in line with the requirements of the CoCP. The contractor would also need to gain approval from the 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 the measures to minimise noise and vibration. This would ensure that the noise levels are reasonable and best practical means are applied. The measures would be agreed with local authority environmental health officers. Additionally, we would implement measures to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, the suitable siting of equipment and the use of site enclosures to provide acoustic screening. At this site the shaft and gantry crane would also be enclosed. Details of the measures to be

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-50

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response adopted for the construction works will be set out in the CoCP, submitted with our DCO application. Full details of the measures that will be adopted for this site will be set out in the CoCP submitted with our DCO application. Your comment is noted and we will consider whether a working group would be an appropriate tool to include in our CoCP that will be submitted with our DCO application.

Outcome

20.5.144 Requirement for S106 to make provision for baseline noise monitoring and a working group to monitor this (concern that once the project starts it will be difficult for residents to make noise, vibration and pollution complaints).

8552LO, 7243

Open space and recreation


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to open space and recreation 20.5.145 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to open space and recreation during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation Table 20.5.25 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 7243 No. 1 Our response Outcome

20.5.146 It is not clear what the scale of the effect on open space and recreation will be; the assessment to date is very vague. 20.5.147 Effect of construction activities on the recreational enjoyment of open space. 20.5.148 Effect on children/young people and teenagers arising from the loss of open space. 20.5.149 The site is a very valuable recreational amenity for the local community. 20.5.150 Other open space and recreation issue: safety for children in the park. 20.5.151 Effect on river navigation and recreational river users.

(LR)LBS 8194

1 1

The proposed site is currently a vacant development site N surrounded by a hoarding. There is no public access to the site and it has no open space or recreational value. Therefore, the proposed works at this site would not have an N effect on open space or recreation. N

7756 7756, LR13498 10968, 11001

1 2 2 The impact of the cofferdam structure at Chambers Wharf on navigation and recreational river users is the subject of on-going studies and a navigational risk assessment. Where this is shown to have an adverse effect on navigational safety, we will amend our proposals or provide appropriate mitigation in agreement with the PLA. Our proposed site is not adjacent or close to any existing open space, other than the River Thames. We do not believe that the works would affect the setting and recreational value of nearby open spaces or the River Thames.

N N N

20.5.152 Proximity of preferred site to an open space, with associated effects on its setting and recreational value.

8410LO, 8561LO, 8803LO, 8712

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-51

20 Chambers Wharf

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation 20.5.153 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation 20.5.154 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation during construction.

Planning and development


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to planning and development Table 20.5.26 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to planning and development during construction Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID 7587, 8188 No. 2 Our response Your comment is noted and welcomed.

20.5.155 Proposals will support redevelopment of the site and/or surrounding area feedback comments including: the resultant site for development can be used for residential purposes and provide a riverside path; the work will open up the Thames Path and pave the way for the high-quality residential development. 20.5.156 Support the use of a site awaiting redevelopment.

7157, 7925, 8188

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development Table 20.5.27 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 8303LO 8300, LR13381 No. 1 2 Our response Outcome

20.5.157 Conflict with an existing site allocation. 20.5.158 Proposal is contrary to adopted planning policy.

Sites were assessed against all relevant planning policies as N part of the site selection process. While it is located in the Southwark Plan River Thames Policy Area, there are no N adopted site-specific planning policies that affect this site. Where possible, our proposals have sought to address the general requirements of local planning policies relating to matters such as site access, design and the reduction of potential effects on the local area. It is considered that, with appropriate mitigation measures, these policies are unlikely to be unacceptably impacted upon at this site. We have worked with St James, the developers, to develop a programme of works that would facilitate both the construction of the tunnel and phased commencement of their development. We have also aligned our proposals for both the construction and permanent layout and design of the site. N N

20.5.159 Conflict with emerging regeneration proposals/future developments. 20.5.160 Conflict with implementation of existing planning permission for the site, which is likely to be implemented in the near future. 20.5.161 It is a prime development site in Zone 1. 20.5.162 Compatibility with existing planning permission adjacent to/in the vicinity of the site. 20.5.163 Proposals will impact on local regeneration

13490LO, 8571LO, 8768LO, 8718, 8721, 8786

(LR)LBS, 9044LO, LR9272LO, 7261, 7496, 13 7572, 7756, 8647, 8753, 9149, 9496, 9497, LR13381 9206 (LR)LBS, 8649, LR13381 1 3

N N

GLA, (LR)LBS, 8552LO, 8887LO, 9105LO,

23

Construction of the tunnel in this location is not expected to

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-52

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns for reasons included: - blocking a more wealthy component from integrating with poorer components of Southwark, part of a long-term Southwark Regeneration project - undoing the great work that developments like Bermondsey Spa have done.

Respondent ID LR9272LO ,10921, 7261, 7756, 7761, 8125, 8297, 8298, 8300, 8566, 8653, 8673, 9074, 9177, 9206, 9249, 9476, LR13472

No.

Our response compromise the wider regeneration of the area, or future redevelopment of the site. We have worked with St James, the developers, to develop a programme of works that will facilitate both the construction of the tunnel and phased commencement of their development. We have also aligned our proposals for both the construction and permanent layout and design of the site. We will undertake and submit an environmental impact assessment with our DCO application, which will consider the cumulative effects arising from this and other strategic developments in the local area, if appropriate, and identify any mitigation that may be required to minimise potential effects on the local area. We do not expect that construction of the tunnel in this location would lead to planning blight. Our proposals for the permanent layout and design of the site would complement the existing planning permission for redevelopment and we have discussed our proposals with the developer. Thames Water owns the site in conjunction with St James and the existing planning consent for the site would be implemented following the completion of the Thames Tunnel project works.

Outcome

20.5.164 Cumulative effect of other developments.

8649, LR13472, LR9315

3 4

N N

20.5.165 Planned development of the site after 8303LO, 8639, 8649, 8653 completion of construction works will subject residents to further disruption; developments by Berkley Homes and St James's river front development will mean that construction will take place until 2027. 20.5.166 Proposals will lead to planning blight. (LR)LBS, 8718

20.5.167 Query who will have the St James building from 2013 to 2015?

8647, 8653

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development 20.5.168 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development Table 20.5.28 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of planning and development during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID (LR)LBS No. 1 Our response We are currently in discussions with the LBS and St James (the developer for the approved residential scheme) on this issue. We are seeking to ensure that our DCO application provides sufficient assurance that the two schemes will be compatible. Outcome C

20.5.169 Requirement for planning permission for the amendments to the permitted scheme at Chambers Wharf to be in place prior to commencement of development.

Socio-economic
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects Table 20.5.29 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects during construction Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID 7101, 8188, 8323, 8791 No. 4 Our response Your feedback comments are noted.

20.5.170 The preferred site is the least disruptive option for the local community.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-53

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Supportive and neutral comments

Respondent ID 8306 8188, 8306

No. 1 2

Our response

20.5.171 The preferred site will have the least negative economic effect. 20.5.172 Support for the fact that no houses will need to be demolished.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects Table 20.5.30 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. 4 Our response Our PEIR (volume 22, section 10) provides a preliminary assessment of the likely significant socio-economic effects of the scheme, building on the preliminary findings 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. The Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application will provide a full assessment of our proposed works, together with appropriate mitigation to address any significant effects. Outcome N

20.5.173 Potential socio-economic effects will be 8751, 8753, 8849, LR9279 greater than those set out in the consultation material. 20.5.174 It is not clear what the scale of socioeconomic effects will be; the assessment to date is very vague. LR9272LO, 8653, 8751, 8753

20.5.175 Detrimental effect on business operations: - shops - Bermondsey River could become a depressed area over the next ten years, extending into Rotherhithe and beyond - The whole riverside east of Tower Bridge will lose its appeal and could become a depressed area over the next ten years. 20.5.176 Effect on the local economy and employment.

13379LO, 8410LO, 8561LO, 8803LO, 7165, 7166, 8649, 8712, 8834, LR13381, LR9279

11

13379LO, LR9272LO, 8410LO, 8552LO, 8561LO, 7261, 7581, 8649, 9149, 9488, 9496, 9497

12

The area surrounding the site is largely characterised by N residential development, with very few businesses. The offices of Trac Group are located on the ground floor of the Luna Building to the west of the site. Given the presence of only one business in the immediate vicinity of the site and the location and nature of this business, our PEIR (volume 22, section 10) concluded that local commercial developments would have either no or very limited sensitivity to impacts that may arise as a result construction. Therefore they are not considered further in the socio-economic N assessment. However, we note that our construction may generate local spending and that once complete the works would enhance the River Thames and riverside. We do not agree that the area surrounding the site would become depressed during or after our construction. It is noted that the Tower Bridge/Butler's Wharf/Shad Thames area is favoured by tourists. However, the preferred site is currently inaccessible and surrounded by a hoarding and therefore does not contribute to the tourism value of the area. The proposed works will not preclude the future regeneration of the site, which will then hopefully be attractive to tourists, particularly those who wish to use the Thames Path. We are aware of the planning permission that has been granted for the proposed site and are working with the developer, St James, to design our proposals to N

20.5.177 Effect on tourism and associated revenue; close to Tower Bridge.

8887LO, 10977, 10980, 7496, 7572, 7761, 7767, 8300, 8680, 9129, 9488, 9496, 9497

13

20.5.178 Effect on the image, reputation and regeneration of local area: - Bermondsey River could become a

7165, 7166, 7233, 7261, 7756, 8566, 9036

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-54

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns depressed area over the next ten years, extending into Rotherhithe and beyond - the whole riverside east of Tower Bridge will lose its appeal and could become a depressed area over the next ten years.

Respondent ID

No.

Our response complement the development aspirations for the site. We acknowledge that our works would mean that delivery of the housing proposals cannot commence until our works are complete, but we believe that the wider benefits that would arise from the improvements to the River Thames would have a significant effect on the local area and its image. 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. Landowners include the council or local housing associations that own social housing in the area. In addition to the statutory process we have published an Exceptional hardship procedure which sets out how we would assess claims from householders who contend that they are suffering exceptional hardship as a result of being unable to sell their property because it is potentially impacted by our currently published proposals. We have also published a Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme which sets out details of compensation that would be available during construction for damage or loss, required protection measures and compulsory purchase.

Outcome

20.5.179 Effect on property prices.

7260LO, 7274LO, 7460LO, 8439LO, 222 8560LO, 8561LO, 8562LO, 8564LO, 8569LO, 8571LO, 8795LO, 8802LO, 8887LO, 9044LO, 9093LO, 9108LO, 9147LO, 9254LO, 9380LO, LR9271LO, LR9386LO, 10829, 10831, 10833, 10834, 10835, 10836, 10838, 10839, 10840, 10841, 10842, 10843, 10844, 10845, 10846, 10849, 10850, 10851, 10852, 10855, 10856, 10859, 10860, 10867, 10870, 10871, 10872, 10873, 10875, 10876, 10877, 10878, 10879, 10880, 10881, 10882, 10884, 10885, 10888, 10889, 10891, 10892, 10894, 10895, 10896, 10898, 10899, 10901, 10904, 10905, 10907, 10909, 10910, 10911, 10912, 10917, 10918, 10919, 10920, 10921, 10923, 10924, 10925, 10928, 10929, 10930, 10931, 10936, 10937, 10940, 10941, 10942, 10944, 10949, 10951, 10953, 10956, 10957, 10960, 10962, 10963, 10964, 10965, 10969, 10977, 10978, 10979, 10980, 13484, 7166, 7215, 7233, 7261, 7366, 7756, 7761, 8055, 8059, 8061, 8063, 8066, 8067, 8069, 8070, 8071, 8073, 8128, 8132, 8133, 8134, 8135, 8208, 8225, 8234, 8243, 8245, 8247, 8339, 8341, 8343, 8344, 8345, 8348, 8350, 8356, 8360, 8362, 8364, 8365, 8366, 8367, 8370, 8372, 8374, 8375, 8379, 8381, 8383, 8419, 8434, 8435, 8438, 8442, 8445, 8486, 8507, 8567, 8635, 8653, 8680, 8693, 8751, 8764, 8783, 8858, 8899, 8951, 9026, 9036, 9074, 9082, 9161, 9163, 9168, 9206, 9214, 9249, , 9308, 9312, 9317, 9319, 9358, 9476, LR10970, LR10971, LR10972, LR10981, LR10982, LR10984, LR10987, LR10992, LR10995, LR10997, LR10998, LR13403, LR13405, LR13406, LR13407, LR13413, LR13414, LR13415, LR13416, LR13418, LR13419, LR13420, LR13498, LR9136, LR9279, LR9280,

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-55

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

20.5.180 Cannot ask the council to re-house my family.

20.5.181 Effect on the ability to sell property and the ability to rent.

Respondent ID No. LR9352, LR9360 8560LO, 8561LO, 8564LO, 8795LO, 118 LR9271LO, 10829, 10831, 10835, 10838, 10840, 10843, 10844, 10845, 10850, 10851, 10852, 10857, 10858, 10859, 10870, 10874, 10876, 10878, 10883, 10886, 10887, 10888, 10890, 10891, 10894, 10897, 10898, 10899, 10905, 10907, 10909, 10910, 10911, 10920, 10925, 10930, 10931, 10940, 10942, 10949, 10953, 10957, 10959, 10963, 10964, 10965, 10966, 10967, 10968, 10969, 10978, 8055, 8059, 8061, 8063, 8064, 8066, 8069, 8070, 8071, 8073, 8126, 8130, 8134, 8208, 8243, 8245, 8247, 8339, 8343, 8344, 8345, 8346, 8348, 8356, 8360, 8364, 8366, 8368, 8370, 8371, 8373, 8376, 8383, 8434, 8435, 8438, 8442, 8444, 8445, 8507, 8508, 8567, 8693, 8858, 8899, 8915, LR10970, LR10972, LR10981, LR10990, LR10991, LR10992, LR10994, LR10995, LR13407, LR13412, LR13415, LR13418, LR13419, LR9280, LR9352, LR9360 7799LO, 7996LO, 8439LO, 8560LO, 210 8561LO, 8564LO, 8569LO, 8795LO, 8802LO, 8887LO, 9044LO, 9147LO, 9254LO, 9380LO, LR9271LO, LR9379LO, LR9386LO, 10829, 10830, 10831, 10835, 10838, 10839, 10840, 10842, 10843, 10844, 10845, 10846, 10849, 10850, 10851, 10852, 10855, 10856, 10857, 10858, 10860, 10862, 10867, 10872, 10875, 10876, 10877, 10878, 10880, 10881, 10882, 10884, 10885, 10886, 10887, 10888, 10891, 10892, 10895, 10896, 10898, 10899, 10901, 10904, 10905, 10907, 10908, 10909, 10910, 10911, 10917, 10918, 10919, 10920, 10921, 10923, 10924, 10925, 10928, 10929, 10930, 10936, 10940, 10941, 10942, 10944, 10947, 10949, 10951, 10953, 10956, 10957, 10959, 10962, 10963, 10964, 10965, 10966, 10967, 10968, 10969, 10977, 10978, 10979, 10980, 13484, 7166, 7215, 8055, 8059, 8063, 8066, 8067, 8069, 8070, 8071, 8073, 8126, 8128, 8132, 8133, 8134, 8135, 8136, 8187, 8208, 8243, 8245, 8246, 8247, 8252, 8339, 8341, 8343, 8344, 8345,

Our response

Outcome N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-56

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

20.5.182 Proposals will require relocation of homes and cause population displacement. 20.5.183 Proposals will create increased opportunities for crime, vandalism and antisocial behaviour, creating security risks to neighbouring buildings.

Respondent ID No. 8348, 8350, 8356, 8360, 8362, 8364, 8365, 8366, 8367, 8368, 8370, 8371, 8372, 8374, 8375, 8381, 8382, 8383, 8419, 8434, 8435, 8442, 8445, 8446, 8486, 8507, 8567, 8693, 8751, 8764, 8783, 8858, 8899, 8915, 8951, 9026, 9082, 9161, 9163, 9177, 9194, 9202, 9206, 9308, 9312, 9316, 9317, 9319, 9349, 9358, LR10970, LR10971, LR10972, LR10981, LR10984, LR10987, LR10992, LR10994, LR10995, LR10997, LR10998, LR13381, LR13403, LR13405, LR13406, LR13407, LR13408, LR13412, LR13415, LR13416, LR13418, LR13419, LR13420, LR9136, LR9280, LR9352, LR9360 8783, 9129, 9297 3 7233 1

Our response

Outcome

N As set out in our draft CoCP (section 4.7) site security is an important issue to us and we would ensure that all sites are secure and staffed for security on a 24-hour basis. Sites would have limited entry points and a boundary to minimise opportunities for unauthorised entry. We would also consult with local crime prevention officers to agree security proposals for each site and put in place regular liaison to review security effectiveness and responses to any incidents. The design of our site boundary would also ensure that there is adequate lighting (CoCP, section 4.6) to provide a safe route for the passing public. We would take precautions to avoid shadows cast by our site hoarding on surrounding footpaths and roads to deter the potential for muggings. Where agreed with the LBS, we would also have remote CCTV monitoring. The site would be operated in line with all relevant health and safety standards and requirements, as detailed in our draft CoCP. In particular our construction traffic would be controlled in line with measures set out at section 5 of our CoCP. The safety of other road users and the surrounding community is important to us. We would operate all of our construction sites to ensure that they meet health and safety requirements. N

20.5.184 Health and safety issues associated with the site; local children, schools.

8303LO, 8562LO, 8563LO, 8564LO, 94 8571LO, 8795LO, 8801LO, 9105LO, LR9272LO, LR9386LO, 11001, 11002, 11003, 11004, 11005, 11006, 11007, 13484, 7452, 7578, 7756, 8062, 8130, 8131, 8132, 8133, 8135, 8208, 8251, 8252, 8253, 8255, 8256, 8258, 8259, 8260, 8265, 8266, 8268, 8270, 8271, 8272, 8273, 8299, 8300, 8386, 8393, 8394, 8415, 8416, 8417, 8418, 8419, 8420, 8423, 8426, 8428, 8430, 8431, 8432, 8557, 8558, 8566, 8567, 8568, 8572, 8611, 8646, 8680, 8753, 8858, 8911, 8912, 8951, 8953, 9013, 9023, 9129, 9214, 9333, 9334, 9349, 9353, 9357, 9496, 9497, LR11000, LR13472, LR8422, LR9136, LR9289, LR9341, LR9352, LR9360

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-57

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID See annex D of this report

No. 350

Our response Our PEIR (volume 22) provides a preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the scheme on a range of topics, including noise and vibration, air quality (including dust emissions) and odour, and transport, based on a methodology that has been agreed with the LBS. A full assessment of likely significant effects will be provided with the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. We are also preparing a Health impact assessment that will examine the likely significant effects of the proposed development on human health and well-being and possible effects in the population. The findings of this study will inform the design for this site as well as mitigation measures to address any significant effects.

Outcome N

20.5.185 Effect on quality of life; local children's education will be disrupted, residents will suffer from insomnia. 20.5.186 Effect on human health, particularly for children and the elderly, including asthma, respiratory problems, rats, and emotional stress. 20.5.187 Effect of construction activities on residential amenity.

See annex D of this report

257

(LR)LBS, 7996LO, 8303LO, 8560LO, 39 8561LO, 8744LO, 8768LO, 8801LO, 8802LO, 8803LO, 9092LO, 9093LO, 9254LO, LR9272LO, LR9379LO, 7165, 7761, 7767, 8271, 8486, 8572, 8712, 8718, 8751, 8753, 8776, 8927, 9026, 9160, 9163, 9177, 9194, 9198, 9202, 9249, 9353, LR9112, LR9279, LR9289 8927 1 344

20.5.188 Effects on health have not been properly addressed by the phase two consultation.

N 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. Our PEIR (volume 22) provided a preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the scheme on residential amenity and concluded that the potential effects that could reduce amenity for residents at this location could last throughout the construction period (up to six years), which constitutes a long-term impact. However, during this time, potential effects are likely to rise and fall as different activities of the construction process take place. Further, activities would be unlikely to be consistent for the entire duration of any given day, even during the peak of construction activity. The overall effect on users and employees at St Michaels Catholic College is assessed to be long-term minor adverse and therefore not significant. We are preparing an Environmental statement that will be submitted as part of our DCO application. The Environmental statement will assess the likely significant effects of the proposed development. Our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) sets out a series of measures to mitigate the likely significant effects of development on residential amenity, including controls on working hours, site layout, site operation and site N N

20.5.189 Proximity to residential properties, including See annex D of this report Luna House, Axis Court and Dickens Estate. 20.5.190 The area around the constructions site is densely populated.

LC, 7274LO, 8571LO, 9105LO, 33 LR9271LO, LR9272LO, 7165, 7215, 7496, 7580, 7767, 8041, 8456, 8486, 8649, 8653, 8738, 9023, 9160, 9188, 9193, 9194, 9198, 9251, 9347, 9357, 9476, 9488, 9496, 9497, LR8975, LR9136, LR9360 See annex D of this report 368

20.5.191 Proximity to community and social amenities such as local schools including St Michaels Roman Catholic Secondary School. 20.5.192 Effect on local schools has not been properly addressed by the phase two consultation. 20.5.193 Effect on immediate neighbouring residents has not been properly addressed by the phase two consultation. 20.5.194 Effect of construction activities on the local community including the floating community.

8803LO, 9147LO, 8712, 8827, 8858, 9007, 9036, 9129 LR9386LO, 8653, 8827, 9007, 9334, 9387

20.5.195 Effect of disruption over many years and 24hour seven-day work schedule; impact on local schools and residents.

8303LO, 8552LO, 8562LO, 8571LO, 24 8796LO, 8803LO, 7019, 7165, 7166, 7233, 7366, 7621, 8417, 8507, 8566, 8624, 8635, 8680, 8738, 8751, 8753, 8786, 9347, LR9112 7460LO, 8560LO, 8562LO, 8563LO, 94 8564LO, 8571LO, 8796LO, 8802LO, 9108LO, LR9379LO, LR9386LO, 11001, 11002, 11003, 11004, 11005, 11006, 11007, 13484, 7165, 7233, 7755, 7761,

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-58

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

20.5.196 Extent and duration of construction works in a predominantly residential area over many years and 24-hour seven-day work schedule; local residents have already endured many years of construction and demolition.

Respondent ID No. 7767, 8194, 8225, 8234, 8251, 8252, 8253, 8255, 8256, 8258, 8259, 8260, 8265, 8266, 8268, 8270, 8271, 8272, 8273, 8297, 8298, 8300, 8320, 8386, 8393, 8394, 8415, 8416, 8417, 8418, 8419, 8420, 8423, 8426, 8428, 8430, 8431, 8432, 8456, 8558, 8566, 8567, 8568, 8572, 8611, 8673, 8680, 8764, 8786, 8911, 8912, 8951, 8953, 9023, 9074, 9333, 9353, 9357, 9488, 9496, 9497, LR11000, LR8422, LR8975, LR9279, LR9341, LR9343, LR9352, LR9360, 9450PET, 9451PET 8303LO, 8768LO, 8795LO, 8801LO, 24 8802LO, LR9272LO, LR9386LO, 7165, 7166, 7360, 7366, 7572, 7580, 7584, 7621, 7761, 82988428, 8438, 8750, 8751, 9357, LR9112, LR9343

Our response management.

Outcome

20.5.197 More information is needed on socioeconomic effects.

9129

As set out in the Chambers Wharf site information paper it is expected that construction works would last for approximately six years. The programming of works at all sites will be configured to minimise the duration of works and associated disruption to the local area where possible. The length of the construction period as set out in the consultation documents was the period assessed in the PEIR that works would be underway and it is hoped that in many cases there will be periods during which there will be no activity or less intensive activity on some sites. We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. We carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. Details of our proposals were set out in our site information paper and a preliminary assessment of the likely significant socioeconomic effects was included in our PEIR (volume 22, section 10). We are confident therefore that the information we have provided is sufficient. We do not expect that construction of the tunnel in this location would lead to planning blight. Our proposals for the permanent layout and design of the site would complement the existing planning permission for redevelopment and we have discussed our proposals with the developer St James.

20.5.198 Proposed construction work will blight the local area.

9083LO, 9084LO, 9085LO, 9086LO, 7572, 17 8751, 8783, 8890, 9149, 9395, 9475, 9488, 9496, 9497, LR13472, LR9315, LR9341

20.5.199 Other socio-economic objections, issues and concerns included: - will breach the human rights of the local residents
- very real risk that the assessment of

13379LO, 9093LO, LR9272LO, 10959, 7215, 8751, 8753, 8849, 9357,

"minimal" damage could turn out have serious deleterious effects on the neighbourhood
- no confidence that Thames Water will, or

The need to uphold human rights is of great importance to N us. We recognise the need to balance private rights with the public objectives of the project. The process of consultation and the need to obtain statutory consents to bring the proposals forward would protect human rights. If the Thames Tunnel project achieves consent, the law provides a N compensation scheme for those whose property would be required for the project or suffer adverse effects from it. Our PEIR (volume 22) provides a preliminary assessment of N the likely significant effects of the scheme on a range of

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-59

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns even can, adequately control the behaviour of its contractors
- cumulative effects with Berkeley Homes - there is no recourse available to us or

Respondent ID

No.

sanction on you
- the whole is much greater than the sum of

the parts.

Our response 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. A full assessment will be provided with the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application.. The environmental impact assessment will also consider the cumulative effects arising from strategic developments in the local area. During construction, we would require all contractors to be fully certified under the Considerate Contractors Scheme. Further details can be found in the Managing construction project information paper and draft CoCP.

Outcome

N N N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects 20.5.200 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 20.5.31 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 8563LO, 8795LO, 7452, 7621, 8566 8680 9105LO No. 5 1 1 Our response Please see our response at paragraph 20.3.26 above. We believe that we have set out a range of measures that would mitigate the likely significant effects of the construction at this site. In particular, our draft CoCP stated that our contractor would be required to implement a range of measures at the site during construction, including best practice measures to minimise noise and vibration from plant and works including the selection of appropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment, and use of hoardings to provide acoustic screens. Additionally our PEIR assessments take into account the mitigation measures set out in the draft CoCP and assume that the mitigation would be implemented. We are continuing to develop our CoCP and Environmental statement and will submit a copy for approval as part of our DCO application. 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 Outcome N N N

20.5.201 Use an alternative site. 20.5.202 More information is needed on socioeconomic mitigation. 20.5.203 There is no guarantee that the mitigation proposed will be delivered.

20.5.204 Mitigation proposed to address socioeconomic effects is inadequate/insufficient in respect of the hardship policy which indicates assistance only if the property cannot be sold for 85 per cent of the fair market price, this is not fair. 20.5.205 Provide appropriate compensation.

8569LO, 8795LO, 9105LO, LR9272LO, 7215, 7621, 8558, 8653, 8751

7799LO, 8795LO, 9254LO, 7215, 8486, 8751, 8827

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-60

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response available during construction for damage or loss, required protection measures and compulsory purchase.

Outcome

Structures and utilities


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to structures and utilities 20.5.206 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 20.5.32 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 7799LO, 8410LO, 8561LO, 8803LO, 9105LO, 8614, 8680, 8712, 8750, 8953, 9007, 9082, 9251, 9288, 9357, 9476, LR13498, LR8975 No. 18 Our response Our Settlement project information paper provides information on our approach to controlling and limiting ground movement, which can cause settlement, associated with construction of the tunnel. It is acknowledged that construction of the tunnel would cause some small movements in the ground, the level of which would depend on a range of factors including the size and depth of construction works as well as existing ground conditions. The use of modern tunnelling methods and the depth of our tunnels, which are generally much deeper than most other tunnels under London, minimise the likelihood of any potential ground movement. We are assessing the potential likely significant effects of ground movement in advance of the works and, where necessary, would carry out protective measures. We would also monitor actual ground movement during and after the tunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted. We would also carry out a defects survey on buildings located over, or close to, our tunnels and worksites where we consider this necessary. The method used for assessing settlement is similar to that used for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, the Jubilee Line Extension, and Crossrail. Our PEIR (volume 22, section 9) sets out a preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of vibration associated with our proposed works. The assessment concludes that at the assessed properties, which are identified at Table 9.4.1 of the PEIR (volume 22, section 9), there are not likely to be any significant vibration effects from our works. 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

20.5.207 Risk of subsidence from construction activities (additional vibration and settlement as a result of shaft excavation, piling, the main tunnels, and lorry movements) particularly as Jacob Island and George Row are built on reclaimed, marshy terrain, with recent history of significant subsidence. 20.5.208 Structural damage to bridges arising from construction activities.

13379LO, 9288

2 2

N N

20.5.209 Residential buildings on East Lane, 8252, 9288 Chambers Street, Bermondsey Wall West, Bermondsey Wall East, Loftie Street and Bevington Street are located in the vicinity of the site and there are concerns regarding structural damage arising from construction works. 20.5.210 Structural damage to other buildings arising from construction activities. 20.5.211 Possibility of ground movement and associated effect on buildings and structures, which is likely to impact on entire row of terraces from any movement caused by lorries along Bevington Street. 20.5.212 Damage to utilities arising from construction activities. 20.5.213 Risk of subsidence arising from tunnelling. 20.5.214 Structural damage to residential buildings arising from tunnelling and queries relating to what guarantees are there that your tunnelling will not disturb the foundations and water table. LR8975, LR9112 7799LO, 7366

2 2

N N

8410LO, 8561LO, 8712 See annex D of this report 7799LO, 8252, 8486

3 250 3

N N N

20.5.215 Possibility of ground movement and the 7799LO associated effect on buildings and structures

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-61

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns arising from tunnelling, including effects on land stability.

Respondent ID

No.

Our response

Outcome

20.5.216 More information is needed on structural effects and how they would be assessed. 20.5.217 Other structures and utilities issue; who would be liable if cracks appeared in my flat or other flats in the building in which I live? 20.5.218 Effect of construction activities on telecoms and communications.

13379LO, 7800 9288

2 1

N N

LR13498

Any utilities close to or within our sites would be surveyed prior to and protected during construction. We do not consider the presence of the telecoms infrastructure to be a factor that would preclude development at this site.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities 20.5.219 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 20.5.33 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 8614, LR9117 No. 2 Our response 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. 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, would 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 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 Outcome N

20.5.220 Mitigation proposed to address the issues relating to structures and utilities is inadequate/insufficient. 20.5.221 Structural monitoring of buildings. 20.5.222 Provide suitable compensation. 20.5.223 Other structures and utilities mitigation required included: - completion of a full conditions survey for nearby buildings

9357 8614 (LR)LBS, 9357

1 1 2

N N N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-62

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response our construction works taking place nearby, disturbance compensation may be available as detailed in our Guide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programme. Proposed transport routes for construction vehicles are set out in our site information paper and we confirm that we do not propose to divert traffic via George Row. Instead, we propose that our construction traffic would use Bevington Street. As our proposed site is some distance from Jacob Island and George Row we do not propose to carry out full geophysical surveys of these areas.

Outcome

- measures to prevent lorry traffic diverting

via George Row, which already suffers from serious subsidence issues

- full geophysical surveys of the Jacobs

Island and George Row areas should be carried out before the site is approved, to understand and model the effect of vibration due to piling, shaft excavation and tunnelling, plus lorry movements.

Townscape and visual


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to townscape and visual effects 20.5.224 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects Table 20.5.34 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 8439LO, 8569LO, 8194, 9129, 9198 8802LO, 8753, 8890, 9395, 9475 No. 5 5 Our response A preliminary assessment of likely significant townscape and visual effects has been undertaken and is presented in the PEIR (volume 22, section 11). We are undertaking a townscape and visual impact assessment as part of our environmental impact assessment that will identify any likely significant effects of our proposed construction activities and any mitigation required to address such effects, for example well-designed visually attractive hoardings or early planting to create visual screening where appropriate. Our draft CoCP also set out measures to ensure that the townscape and visual effects of construction would be minimised, for example, by using appropriate capped and directional lighting when required. We have identified that the site is partially located within the protected London Panorama 5A.2 (north east of the General Wolfe statue to St Pauls Cathedral). The site is located below the frame of the view, screened by intervening buildings and structures. A number of further viewpoints are assessed in the PIER, including those westward toward Tower Bridge. Currently the preferred site is inaccessible and surrounded by hoardings. The effect of construction activity on the Outcome N N

20.5.225 Effect of construction activities, machinery and site hoarding on the local townscape. 20.5.226 Effect on local views, including: - prime spot for watching River Thames firework displays, sunsets over Tower Bridge and reflections off Wapping and Canary Wharf towers. - one of the finest 180 degree open city views in the world. 20.5.227 Effect of construction activities on river views, specifically Tower Bridge and the Tower of London, a WHS. 20.5.228 Effect of construction activities and structures on London View Management Framework views. 20.5.229 Effect on major London landmarks (Tower Bridge). 20.5.230 Effect of construction activities and structures on the character of the local area.

(LR)LBS, 10919, 10980, 7233, 7496, 7761, 16 8194, 8751, 8890, 9149, 9206, 9395, 9475, 9488, LR9315, LR9341 EH 1

8803LO, 7761, 8256, 8300, 8890, 9214, 9288, 9395, 9475 7165, 7496, 7755, 7756, 8300, 8751, 8753, 8776, 8783, 9206, 9337

11

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-63

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

20.5.231 Effect of construction activities and structures on the character of the riverside/river frontage.

Respondent ID 7260LO, 8561LO, 8569LO, 7165, 7402, 8298, 8300, 8712, 9193

No. 9

Our response character of the local area would be for a temporary period only, following which the site would be redeveloped in line with the regeneration proposals that have been approved by the LBS. Our draft CoCP sets out measures that would ensure that the construction site would be well operated and maintained. Measures to minimise likely significant effects upon the character of the site during construction, such as use of suitable screening around the construction site, will be set out in the CoCP and Environmental statement to be submitted with our DCO application. It is noted that the site has been an underused and derelict industrial site for many years and is currently a hoarded and largely cleared site that does not provide a positive contribution to the local character of the area.

Outcome N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual 20.5.232 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual Table 20.5.35 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID (LR)LBS No. 1 Our response Outcome

20.5.233 More information is needed on mitigation, including: details of the design and finish of proposed hoardings and their maintenance during construction. 20.5.234 Mitigation proposed to address townscape and visual effects is inadequate/insufficient.

8653

A preliminary assessment of likely significant townscape and N visual effects has been undertaken and is presented in the PEIR (volume 22, section 11). We are developing this further with a townscape and visual impact assessment as part of our environmental impact assessment that will be N submitted with our DCO application. Our draft CoCP (provided at phase two consultation) sets out a range of measures to safeguard the townscape and visual environment during construction, for example, the use of suitable screening around the construction site. We are working with the LBS to establish further site specific construction mitigation measures as appropriate. The site would be appropriately screened with hoarding to reduce potential likely significant effects on the local townscape. Following completion, the site would be available for mixed use development and the area would be landscaped in accordance with approved plans for this development. N

20.5.235 Provide suitable landscape and planting, particularly in areas close to nearby residential properties. 20.5.236 Use of high hoardings and screening panels could have an adverse impact on visual amenity and viewpoints and could appear oppressive.

9337

(LR)LBS

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-64

20 Chambers Wharf

Transport and access


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access Table 20.5.36 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access during construction Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID 7101, 7800, 8198, 8306, 8606 7155 No. 5 1 Our response Your support is welcomed and noted. We agree that local roads could accommodate construction traffic.

20.5.237 Support proposed site access. 20.5.238 Proposed construction traffic routes are suitable, as evidenced by the recent Berkley Homes development. 20.5.239 Support proposed use of barges to transport materials, including: - reducing the noise and disturbance experienced by residents living nearby - Thames Water's approach in setting targets for the use of barges and its plans to use barges to remove 90 per cent of excavated material from the three main drive sites and for 66 per cent of all excavation material. 20.5.240 Proposals will ensure that the Thames Path is kept open. 20.5.241 Proposals will not result in, or significantly exacerbate existing traffic congestion. 20.5.242 Other supportive/general comment; longterm suspension of parking bays can be provided in the local area.

LC, PLA, 7160, 7211, 7587, 7800, 8119, 8125, 8306, 8886, 8936, 9337, 9442

13

Your support is welcomed and noted. We agree that this site would allow the use of barges to transport materials from the site.

8306, 8886 8606 9337

2 1 1

Your support is noted and welcomed.

Your support is noted and welcomed.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access Table 20.5.37 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. 6 Our response As part of our PEIR (volume 22, section 12) we assessed the likely significant construction transport effects on pedestrian and cycle routes; bus and other public transport routes and patronage; parking; and highway layout, operation and capacity as well as the effects on residential amenity and business operations. As part of the assessment we have considered the effects of lorry and (where applicable) barge transport, based on a methodology that has been discussed and agreed with the LBS and TfL. The PEIR was available as part of our phase two consultation. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We are preparing a full Transport assessment for submission as part of our DCO application. The Transport assessment will consider the cumulative effects of our works with other strategic developments in the local area. Outcome N

20.5.243 The potential transport effects will be greater (LR)LBS, 7360, 7621, 8297, 8558, 8953 than those set out in the consultation material. 20.5.244 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. 20.5.245 Effect of construction traffic on business amenity and operation. 20.5.246 Cumulative transport effects arising from other developments in the local area. GLA, 7490, 8225, 8647, 8781

8712 9488

1 1

N N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-65

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

20.5.247 Disruption to the use of the Thames Path caused by construction works or diversion. The path should be improved or enhanced to help segregate pedestrians from nearby construction activity. 20.5.248 Effect of disruption, diversion or closure of pedestrian or cycle route for example on part of National Cycle Route 4 (a 480-mile signed bike route from Greenwich to Fishguard). 20.5.249 Construction traffic will cause traffic congestion on Bevington St, Chambers St and Jamaica Road (A200). 20.5.250 Construction traffic will affect access to the local area. 20.5.251 Effect of construction traffic on residential amenity.

Respondent ID 13379LO, 8410LO, 8561LO, 8571LO, 8803LO, 9147LO, LR9272LO, 10977, 7402, 7496, 7709, 8256, 8558, 8786, 8849, 8890, 9007, 9149, 9198, 9318, 9337, 9357, 9395, 9475, 9488, 9496, 9497, LR8975, LR9315, LR9341 306

No. 30

Our response The work site that we propose for construction would not require a diversion or restrict access to the existing Thames Path, as set out in the Chambers Wharf site information paper available as part of the phase two consultation. Based on the proposals set out in our consultation material, the current Thames Path route would remain during the construction period.

Outcome N

See annex D of this report

306

13379LO, 8635, 8765, 8771, LR13381 (LR)LBS, 7460LO, 7799LO, 8303LO, 8561LO, 8564LO, 8569LO, 8795LO, 8796LO, LR9386LO, 7019, 7465, 8125, 8298, 8426, 8428, 8639, 8647, 8751, 8764, 8927, 8938, 8953, 8970, 9023, 9129, 9163, 9168, 9353, LR8975, LR9136, LR9289 8571LO,13379LO, 7211, 7496, 7621, 8194, 8234, 8300, 8415, 8486, 8614, 8649, 8750, 8765, 8781, 8915, 8953, 9007, 9161, 9297, 9357, 9496, 9497, LR9111, LR9315

5 32

20.5.252 Construction traffic will exacerbate existing traffic congestion on Jamaica Road (A200) which is often congested as it provides key access to the Rotherhithe Tunnel.

25

At this site we propose to use barges to transport the majority of cofferdam fill materials and excavated materials from the shaft and tunnel. This is expected to reduce the number of lorry visits to/from this site by approximately 60 per cent. It is expected that at the peak of construction (years one and two) an average of 45 lorries would visit (travelling to and from) the site each working day, as indicated in the PEIR (volume 22, section 12). Road access to this site is proposed via Bevington Street which would link to Jamaica Road (A200) to the south, which is part of the major road network, as illustrated in the Chambers Wharf site information paper. We are reviewing the proposed routes that construction traffic would use 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 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. As part of our PEIR (volume 22, section 12) we assessed the construction transport effects on pedestrian and cycle routes; bus and other public transport routes and patronage; parking; and highway layout, operation and capacity as well as the effects on residential amenity and business operations. As part of the assessment we have considered the effects of lorry and (where applicable) barge transport, based on a methodology that has been discussed and agreed with the LBS and TfL. The PEIR was available as part of our phase two consultation. We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We are preparing a full Transport assessment for submission as

C C

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-66

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response part of our DCO application. The Transport assessment will consider the cumulative effects of our works with other strategic developments in the local area. We do not envisage that construction traffic would cause any damage to local roads as, where possible, we would use the major road network which is designed and built to handle this type of traffic. We would monitor any likely significant effects on other roads used by our construction vehicles to ensure that any damage that is directly attributable to the project is quickly repaired. Measures to ensure the restoration of roads to existing condition is set out in our draft CoCP published at phase two consultation. We have carefully considered the options for access to the site and believe that the proposed access is suitable, as the TfL road network is designed and built to handle this type of traffic. At this site we also propose to use barges to transport the majority of excavated materials from the tunnel. This is expected to reduce the number of lorry visits to/from this site by approximately 60 per cent.

Outcome

20.5.253 Construction traffic will cause road damage on Bevington Street.

LC, 7799LO, 7588, 9007, 9357, 9476

20.5.254 Proposed site access is unsuitable for 8562LO, 7165, 7767, 8300, 9023 reasons including that Jamaica Road (A200) is congested as it provides key access to the Rotherhithe Tunnel. 20.5.255 Alternative site access is required turning right out of Chambers Wharf, continuing on along Chambers Street and turning left on George Row. 20.5.256 Effect on emergency access. 20.5.257 Local roads are unsuitable for use by construction vehicles due to narrow local streets, for example Mill Street and Bermondsey Wall West. There is a single access road only in front of one of our best primary schools. 20.5.258 Proposed access route to the site will result in the loss of on-street car parking at Chambers Street (car parking bays) 20.5.259 Lack of alternative car parking facilities in the local area to replace spaces that will be lost or relocated during construction. 20.5.260 Loss of car parking will affect accessibility to the local area and increase parking pressure. 20.5.261 Effect of construction traffic on road safety. 20.5.262 Effect of construction traffic on the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and local residents: - part of National cycle route 4 - next to four primary schools - risks to cyclist that currently use the roads outside Chambers Wharf; attempting to 8306

8426 7262LO, 8560LO, 9147LO, 8562LO, 9093LO, 7166, 7588, 7621, 7761, 7767, 8125, 8256, 8298, 8299, 8300, 8614, 8764, 8786, 8836, 9214, 9349

1 21 The site has good access to the major road network, which is designed and built to handle this type of traffic. We are reviewing the proposed routes that construction traffic would use as part of our transport assessment.

N N

10851

9147LO, 8419

Some on-street car parking would be temporarily 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, where appropriate, alternative positioning of spaces.

8410LO, 8561LO, 9147LO, 9254LO, 8712, 8750 8561LO, 8632LO, LR9272LO, 8412, 8712, 8783, 8836, 8953, LR9117 GLA, (LR)LBS, 13379LO, 7262LO, 8410LO, 8561LO, 8562LO, 8571LO, 8801LO, 8803LO, 8795LO, 9254LO, 8887LO, LR9386LO, 10890, 13484, 7165, 7366, 7402, 7452, 7588, 7621, 7709, 7756, 8412, 8486, 8558, 8653, 8680,

9 45

We would design site accesses and operate all of our construction sites to ensure that they meet design, health and safety standards. We are developing a CoCP for submission with our DCO application, which will include requirements for a Traffic management plan to ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlled in order to minimise any potential likely significant effects on the road network including access to the local area, as well as setting out

N N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-67

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns use the diverted Thames Path.

Respondent ID 8712, 8764, 8813, 8834, 8858, 8953, 9161, 9353, 9357, 9476, 9496, 9497, LR8975, LR9112, LR9315, LR9341 (LR)LBS, 8303LO, 8410LO, 8803LO, 9083LO, 9084LO, 9107LO, 7165, 7166, 7402, 7756, 7761, 8234, 8320, 8486, 8614, 8813, 8858, 9188, 9198, 9357, LR9116, LR9136 11001, 7215

No.

20.5.263 Effect on construction traffic on safe access to schools including Riverside Primary School.

23

Our response construction traffic routes, site access/egress points, signage and monitoring procedures. There would be a requirement to ensure the proposals do not endanger safe school access. The transport assessment will also review data relating to recent accidents. The proposals will be subject to independent external review by TfL and the local highway authority to ensure proposed highway layouts and vehicle movement arrangements are as safe as possible. The impact of the structure on navigation from Chambers Wharf is the subject of on-going studies and navigational risk assessment. Where this is shown to have an adverse effect on navigational safety, we will amend our proposals or provide appropriate mitigation in agreement with the PLA. As set out in our Transport project information paper, we are determining where our materials will come from and go to, so that the most sustainable and cost-effective transport routes and modes can be chosen, this includes consideration of rail, road and river transport. Our transport strategy will set out the best transport solution for the site. Taking a number of factors into account including cost, at this stage we believe that transporting some materials by river barge is the best solution for this site. Tidal patterns have been taken into account in developing our strategy for moving materials by barge from this site. Based on the studies that have been completed to date, this matter is not considered to be a constraint on using barges at this site. The proposed working hours for the site are set out in the site information paper and draft CoCP and these working hours would also apply to traffic coming to and from the site. As part of our preliminary transport assessment we have considered the effects of lorry and (where applicable) barge transport within these working hours, based on a methodology that has been discussed and agreed with the LBS and TfL.

Outcome

20.5.264 Effect of structures required to enable river transport (eg cofferdams) on river navigation and commercial rivers users, including the large vessels that visit every summer? 20.5.265 Using the river to transport materials is not cost-effective. 20.5.266 General effect of river transportation; concerned that this may become a marshalling point for barges from upstream. 20.5.267 The cost of transporting materials by river will be prohibitive. 20.5.268 Physical site constraints will limit the potential to transport materials by barge.

9083LO, 9084LO, 9085LO, 9086LO 8632LO, 7761, 8119, 8194, 8486, LR9341

4 6

N N

8764

9147LO

20.5.269 Duration of construction works and associated traffic effects.

13379LO, 8786

20.5.270 More information is needed on construction transport effects including site access, intended routes, maximum amount of lorries per day, estimated increase in mortality and injury rates to local residents and school children from the extra lorry traffic under stressed scenarios.

7243, 7695, 8306, 8680

We carefully considered the information we made available N at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. The information was based on our preliminary transport assessment which is still being developed and we will discuss the details further with TfL and the LBS to ensure that any significant transport effects are identified in the Environmental statement to be submitted as part of our DCO application.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-68

20 Chambers Wharf

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access 20.5.271 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address transport and access during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access Table 20.5.38 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 7262LO, 7496 No. 2 Our response Please see our response at paragraph 20.3.26 above. N

20.5.272 Use an alternative site for example Kings Stairs Gardens has better access to the A200.

20.5.273 More information is needed on transport 7233, 7243, 8680, 9387 mitigation including the assessment of barge use, safety precautions to mitigate the elevated hazard presented to local residents and schoolchildren. What speed limits would be observed and where would speed cameras or traffic bumps be placed to enforce this? 20.5.274 Mitigation proposed to address transport and access issues is inadequate/insufficient for example: - the clever identification of the best site access and even more clever one-way system are great concepts that will fade into insignificance when 45 lorries a day use the same road as all the pedestrians who are diverted from the Thames Path onto Chambers Street - there is no way that the issue can be solved since the lorries will inevitably have to travel on the roads in the area - as to vehicle movement - vague references to traffic management plans do not address the issue at all. 20.5.275 No guarantee that the mitigation proposed will be delivered, particularly the proposed level of movements by barge. 8569LO, 8571LO, 7490, 8624, 8783, 8953, 9129, 9357

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, reinstatement of public rights of way, as well as details on our working hours and the way we would manage our workforce. These measures have been taken into account in undertaking our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the scheme. We are currently considering whether we could make further use of the river to transport materials. We are also investigating the feasibility of a pedestrian crossing near Riverside School.

(LR)LBS, 7996LO, 8571LO, 8801LO, 7166

For all our proposed tunnel drive sites, we have committed C to using barges to transport the majority of cofferdam fill materials and excavated materials from the shaft and tunnel. This commitment, along with other measures to reduce the potential construction impacts, would be included in our CoCP which we are submitting with our DCO application. A diversion to the Thames Path would not be required, as illustrated in our site information paper. Our footpath and cycleway diversions would be designed to meet all appropriate design and safety standards and will form part of our DCO application. N N N

20.5.276 Provide a suitable and safe Thames Path diversion. 20.5.277 Provide suitable and safe cycleway diversions. 20.5.278 Provide suitable and safe footpath diversions.

8712 (LR)LBS (LR)LBS

1 1 1

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-69

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No. 1

Our response Our proposals for this site as set out in the phase two consultation materials and propose the use of the A200 for construction traffic to access the A2. Where other routes are proposed, we would also use Jamaica Road (A200). We are investigating the opportunities to provide alternative car parking for any suspended car parking that would be required as a result of our works. We will continue to consult with the LBS and will report our conclusions as part of the Transport assessment that will be submitted with our DCO application. Your feedback comments are welcomed and noted. We would seek to minimise the duration of the construction. N

20.5.279 Provide an alternative construction traffic (LR)LBS route to and from the site, the Jamaica Road (A200) is preferred to access the A2. 20.5.280 Make alternative car parking provision. (LR)LBS

20.5.281 Reduce or limit the duration of construction to minimise transport effects. 20.5.282 Adopt appropriate site management measures to control construction worker parking, including cycle parking provision. 20.5.283 Restrict or limit working hours when construction and related vehicles can access local roads, for example outside of school hours. 20.5.284 Establish traffic management plans with community engagement which are inclusive of directional signage on Jamaica Road (A200) and ensure quick removal of slurry by barge.

7243 (LR)LBS, 9254LO, 8419, 8781

1 4

8306

7588, 8119, 8306

As set out in our Transport project information paper we N would require most construction staff to travel to and from the site by public transport. As part of the Transport assessment that will be submitted with our DCO application, N 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 N 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, reinstatement of public rights of way, as well as details about our working hours and the way we would manage our workforce. These measures have been taken into account in undertaking our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the scheme. We are currently preparing an Environmental statement that will identify further mitigation measures if significant adverse effects are identified and are discussing the details of the CoCP and framework Travel plan with the LBS. In addition we would ensure compliance with the CoCP through the construction contract. We are also investigating the feasibility of a pedestrian crossing near Riverside School. We are undertaking computational fluvial modelling and preliminary findings have informed the design of the site. Further modelling will be used to refine the designs, where appropriate, and will inform the Environmental statement, which will be part of our DCO application. The modelling studies would also support agreements with owners of third party assets, where relevant. We are preparing a Navigational risk assessment as part of our DCO application, the approach to which is being N

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

PLA, 8410LO, 8561LO

20.5.286 Undertake navigational assessment to identify potential effects of river transport on

7215, LR10972, LR9280

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-70

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns river users and structures.

Respondent ID

No.

Our response discussed with the PLA. Preliminary discussions with the PLA have also informed the design of the site. It is our intention to use the river to transport excavated and cofferdam materials, as detailed in our Chambers Wharf site information paper. However, it is not generally practical and cost-effective to transport all materials by barge so we would still need to transport some materials by road. At this site, use of barges would remove approximately 53,000 lorries from the road during the construction. We are currently considering whether we could make further use of the river to transport materials. C

20.5.287 Use the river to transport more/all GLA, LC, PLA, 7157, 7695, 8306, 8680, construction materials and spoil: 9337, 9387, LR9315 - even if at a greater financial cost than lorries - further consideration of use of the river during phases 2, 4, 5 and the possible increase in frequency across the whole construction programme - without a disproportionate increase in cost. 20.5.288 Use the river rather than roads to transport construction materials and spoil. 20.5.289 Other transport and access mitigation included: - early consultation with local residents prior to progressing any formal application to suspend the bays
- Thames Water needs to do much more

10

(LR)LBS, 7157, 7496, 7579, 7695, 7800, 8781, 8813 LC, 9337

8 2 Some on-street car parking would be temporarily lost during construction. We are currently considering possible alternative locations for replacement on-street parking and are working with the local authority on the need for and, where appropriate, alternative positioning of spaces. The site has good access to the major road network, which is designed and built to handle this type of traffic. As part of the assessment we have considered the effects of lorry and, where applicable, barge transport, based on a methodology that has been discussed and agreed with the LBS and TfL.

C N

work with boroughs on minimising local disruption and agreeing site access routes etc.

Water and flood risk


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to water and flood risk Table 20.5.39 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to water and flood risk during construction Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID (LR)LBS No. 1 Our response Your feedback comments are noted and welcomed. Outcome N

20.5.290 Supportive general comment in respect of the control of surface water rainfall.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk Table 20.5.40 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID (LR)LBS, 8410LO, 8561LO, 8803LO, 13379LO, 7767, 8712, 8783, LR13498 No. 9 Our response Our PEIR (volume 22, section 15) sets out a preliminary assessment of likely significant effects on flood risk (level one) in line with the requirements of national policy and considers flooding from the sea (and tidal sources); rivers; land and surface water runoff; and groundwater. As set out in our PEIR, the site is in flood zone 3 where there is a high probability of flood risk. Our modelling to date indicates that neither the temporary nor the operational scheme would affect flood risk. Outcome N

20.5.291 Effect on flood risk, including flooding from groundwater.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-71

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response A level two flood risk assessment will be presented in the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application and will identify any appropriate mitigation. As our designs develop we will review the construction effects on flood risk to determine any requirements for compensation. Existing flood defence lines would be maintained during the construction. Therefore there would be no decline in flood protection. We are carrying out fluvial modelling of the temporary foreshore works to establish the likely significant effects of the development on the river, and will discuss the findings with the PLA and the Environment Agency. We are also undertaking scour modelling. Our design would incorporate mitigation measures to manage the temporary effects of our construction on the river. If appropriate, as part of our design development we will consider whether there are alternative options to avoid temporary structures in the river. Where significant scour is predicted we would carry out preventative measures (such as placing riprap on the river bed), and in all locations the riverbed would be monitored and remedial works carried out if/as required. The effects of our temporary river structures do not extend to any nearby bridges.

Outcome

20.5.292 Effect of construction activities on existing flood defences. 20.5.293 Proposals will result in river erosion and scour. 20.5.294 Effect of temporary structures in the river on river flows and currents including feedback comments on: - damage associated with building into the river - no reference made to water-based hydro systems - effect on tidal flow. 20.5.295 Effect of permanent structures in the River Thames on river flows and currents (hydrology). 20.5.296 Effect on the tidal flow feedback comments including: - adverse effect - no reference to any investigation of the potential damage to the bridge and its water-based hydro systems. 20.5.297 Possible siltation arising from construction activities and structures.

8783

LR9274LO 8410LO, 8561LO, 8562LO, 8803LO, 9093LO, LR9274LO, 8486, 8712, 9198, LR13498, LR9280

1 11

N N

13379LO

8410LO, 8561LO, 8803LO, 8712,

LR9274LO

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk 20.5.298 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk Table 20.5.41 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID (LR)LBS No. 1 Our response Preliminary surface water and sewer flood event assessments were provided in our PEIR (volume 22, section 15) and a full flood risk assessment will be provided in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. As part of the construction of the shaft, we would implement de-watering in order to manage groundwater flood risk. The flood risk assessment considers the risk of surface, Outcome N

20.5.299 Other water mitigation feedback comments including: - site specific methodology and risk assessment for surface water and sewer overload flood events - implement continuous dewatering during construction to manage groundwater levels and reduce risk of flooding-

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-72

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns groundwater flood risk assessment - modelling of interaction between ground and surface water.

Respondent ID

No.

Our response sewage, fluvial and ground water flooding at the site. We do not consider that there would be a change in the risk of flooding as a result of the proposed works.

Outcome

20.6
20.6.1 20.6.2

Permanent design and appearance


This section sets out feedback comments received during the phase two consultation in relation to proposals for the permanent design and appearance of structures at Chambers Wharf that are required for the operation of the tunnel when it is in use (the operational phase). During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked to give their views on the identification of site specific issues that have influenced proposals for the permanent design of Chambers Wharf (see question 5 of the phase two 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 20.6.1 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 35 117 0 152 46 82 24 4 42 27 55 4 20 Yes No Dont know/unsure

20.6.3

As part of the phase two consultation, respondents were also asked to comment on proposals for the permanent design and appearance of Chambers Wharf (see question 6 of the phase two 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 20.6.2 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 36 116 0 152 31 92 29 31 28 64 8 21 Supportive Opposed Dont know/unsure

20.6.4

The following sections set out the feedback comments received from respondents in connection with proposals for the permanent design and appearance of Chambers Wharf. Feedback comments are organised under the following sub-headings: supportive and neutral feedback comments

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-73

20 Chambers Wharf 20.6.5

objections, issues and concerns design suggestions.

Where respondents commented on particular matters arising during the operational phase and the management of these effects (whether through design or by other means), these comments are reported in Section 20.7. Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to design and appearance Table 20.6.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Ref 20.6.6 Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID No. 4 Our response Your feedback comments are noted and welcomed. Support design for reasons including the 8796LO, 8803LO, 7157, 7939 scale of the vents compared to the proposed site development. The design/proposals are good. The design/proposals are attractive. The proposals are in keeping with the local area. Proposals are an improvement on the existing situation. Proposals will create a new area of public/ open space. The design enables the site to be used for other purposes once works associated with the Thames Tunnel project are complete. It allows for a residential development to be built above ground, thereby maximising land use. Support for specific design features: - removal of projecting wharf and reinstatement of river edge - the design and layout of the completed works will enable residential development on the site. Proposals are compatible with development proposals for the site. Should include more greenery. 7404, 8306 8186 8876 7155, 8306 7038 7038, 8306, 8813, LR9280

20.6.7 20.6.8 20.6.9 20.6.10 20.6.11 20.6.12

2 1 1 2 1 4

20.6.13

GLA, (LR)LBS, 8765, 8876

20.6.14 20.6.15

7624, 7625 7536, 7804, 9496, 9497, LR9280

2 5 Your support is welcomed. We would provide a temporary finish at ground level prior to the construction of the residential development, which would be built in accordance with landscaping details that the residential developer would need to submit and obtain approval for from the LBS. Your comments are noted.

20.6.16

Other supportive feedback comments included: Thames Water has to do what is necessary for the benefit of all concerned.

7404

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-74

20 Chambers Wharf

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to design and appearance Table 20.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site Ref 20.6.17 20.6.18 Objections, issues and concerns Do not support the proposals for the permanent layout and design of the site. Proposals are unattractive/ugly. Respondent ID 8198, 8614, 8836, 9269, LR9117 7460LO, 8801LO, 8887LO, 9107LO, 7761, 8299, 8300, 8566, 8646, 8751, 8764, 8786, 9357, LR9112 8801LO 9105LO, 10884 No. 5 14 Our response We note your comments on the design of our proposed design. The design follows our project-wide principles and takes into account comments made at phase one consultation, on-going discussions with consultees and our design review with the Design Council CABE. Our Design development report (available as part of our phase two consultation) sets out the principles that have informed our design in more detail. We are continuing to develop our design proposals for this site in light of feedback to phase two consultation. Outcome N N

20.6.19 20.6.20 20.6.21

Proposals are unimaginative/bland. Proposals will create an eye-sore.

1 2 2

N N N

Design should not be utilitarian; it should (LR)LBS, 8646 provide an architectural contribution to the area, for example design for vents should be sculptural, using natural materials to create a signature piece. Further consideration should be given to layout, including: - relationship to the Thames Path, public areas and residential development - think it's a shame that it creates such a pinch-point at the new Thames Path route. The proposed siting also causes more danger to cyclists using the path, as they won't have time to see vehicles arriving etc. Images and information in the site information papers are unrealistic/ misleading/incorrect; doubtful the site will be empty as shown on one picture. 7157, 7451

20.6.22

Your comments are noted and will be taken into consideration in developing our designs for this site. Our proposed permanent structures would be sited in the widest section of the new Thames Path provided by the approved residential development. We do not therefore anticipate that this would create a pinch-point for cyclists or other users, as illustrated in the plans provided in our phase two consultation and our site information paper.

20.6.23

8768LO, 8887LO, 9093LO, 8299, 8649, LR9112, LR9279

Your comments are noted. The images in the site information papers provided illustrations of the permanent design, with further details set out in the Design development report. The illustrations we provided in our consultation material were intended to assist stakeholders to understand our proposals. We believe they are accurate representations of our designs at phase two consultation. Our proposals at this site do not include any soft landscaping except for the biodiverse roof to our kiosk. Instead we would provide a temporary finish at ground level prior to the construction of the residential development, which would be built in accordance with landscaping details that the residential developer would need to submit and obtain approval for from the LBS. The proposed ventilation columns would be located as so to minimise visual impact, while meeting operational requirements. The designs for the site should also be considered in the context of the fact that the remainder of

20.6.24

Landscaping and planting will take a long time to mature and become effective/ restoration of the site will take a long time. There is insufficient landscaping and planting/landscaping and planting proposals are unsatisfactory. The ventilation structure does not fit in with the surrounding area. Effect on local views including views of tower bridge which is a global landmark.

7460LO

20.6.25

7695

20.6.26 20.6.27

8801LO, 7761, 8300, 8566, 8635, 8751, 8899, 9269 7756, 7761, 8300, 8558, 8751, 9357

8 6

N N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-75

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref 20.6.28

Objections, issues and concerns Effect on Tower of London WHS.

Respondent ID 8887LO, 9105LO, 9107LO

No. 3

Our response the site would be redeveloped for multi-story residential and other uses, which in itself would change the character of this area. The current wharf would be demolished and not replaced by our permanent works. The new river wall would not extend into the River Thames as much as the current wharf, therefore the effect of the structure, including effects on local views, would be less than the existing situation. We are working with St James (the developers for the approved residential scheme at Chambers Wharf) and it has been established that the two schemes are compatible. We do not consider that the Thames Tunnel project would adversely affect regeneration of the site given its compatibility with the approved residential scheme. We are, however, revisiting our design to ensure that our proposals have minimal effect on future redevelopment of the site. We anticipate that this would comprise variations to the ventilation column and the size of the kiosk. The proposed access, as shown on our phase two consultation materials, would be from Loftie Street and would be used only infrequently, as set out in our site information paper. Therefore, we do not anticipate that this access would significantly impact on any existing or proposed uses nearby. We do not propose any permanent structures in the foreshore and would rebuild the existing river wall and remove the existing jetty. The site has existing planning permission for a residential development which is expected to be constructed once the Thames Tunnel project works at the site are complete. Work has been undertaken to ensure that the Thames Tunnel project and the residential development are compatible. We have illustrated how we would locate our proposed ventilation columns and kiosk in the approved residential development in the illustrative plans and images presented in our phase two consultation material, including the site information paper. We do not, therefore, agree the site is too small to accommodate these structures. Your comments are noted. We will consider whether the ventilation columns could be moved further away from the existing low rise development to the east. However, it must be noted that there are a number of factors that determine the location of operational elements in the scheme. Further, air from the tunnel would be filtered prior to release, which means that there would be no odour.

Outcome N

20.6.29

Design proposals are not compatible with regeneration plans, design briefs, planning policies or proposals for the local area.

8849

20.6.30

Concerned about proposed permanent site access.

8786

20.6.31

Size of structure(s) in the foreshore of the River Thames is too large/there should be no structures in the foreshore. The site is more suitable to be developed for other uses.

7233

20.6.32

8849, 9349

20.6.33

The site is too small to accommodate the proposals.

7460LO

20.6.34

The permanent buildings and structures are located too close to residential properties/ should not be located in residential or builtup areas. The scale of the permanent buildings and structures is out of keeping with existing buildings in the surrounding area.

8303LO, 8803LO, 9107LO, 7157, 7767, 8426, 8653, 8783, 9063

20.6.35

7157

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-76

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref 20.6.36

Objections, issues and concerns Effect of permanent design and layout on river navigation and commercial river users (Thames Clippers etc).

Respondent ID 7460LO, LR13498

No. 2

Our response

Outcome

We have undertaken modelling to test the effect that the N structure would have on the flow of the river. The modelling has shown that the proposed structure would be satisfactory and the PLA and other key stakeholders are satisfied the permanent works would have a minimum effect on river navigation. We are liaising with the PLA to conduct a navigational risk assessment and will implement mitigation measures identified in the assessment. Our permanent structures would be entirely on land, behind the reinstated river wall. Therefore we do not anticipate that there would be any impact on river navigation. Currently, the Thames Path is diverted around the site, N along Chambers Street. However, it is intended that the path would be reinstated along the river frontage following completion of our works and St James works. It is noted that the Tower Bridge/Butler's Wharf/Shad Thames area is favoured by tourists. However, the preferred site is currently inaccessible and surrounded by a hoarding and therefore does not contribute to the tourism value of the area. The proposed works would not preclude the future regeneration of the site, which would hopefully become attractive to tourists, particularly those who wish to use the Thames Path. 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 that 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 believe the final design of the site would not have a negative effect on residential amenity or quality of life. N

20.6.37

Effect of the permanent site layout and design on the use and/or alignment of the existing Thames Path. The permanent design and layout of the site will affect local tourism and business.

8801LO, 8566

20.6.38

8569LO, 8887LO,10884, 8558

20.6.39

The permanent design and layout of the site will affect property prices and the ability to sell property.

7490

20.6.40 20.6.41

Effect of permanent design and layout on residential amenity and quality of life. The permanent layout and design of the site will have a negative effect on the character and setting of the riverside/river frontage.

7490 8410LO, 8569LO, 10884, 8558, 8751, 8783, 9357

1 7

Our proposals have had regard to the context of the N surrounding townscape, including protected views and the riverside setting. We have also worked with St James to align our proposals for both the permanent layout and design of the site with their scheme. A preliminary assessment of likely significant townscape and visual effects has been undertaken and is presented in the PEIR (volume 22, section 11). We are developing this

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-77

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response further with a townscape and visual impact assessment as part of our environmental impact assessment that will be submitted with our DCO application. This will identify any likely significant effects of our proposed operational development, and any mitigation required to address such effects. The site has been consented for mixed-use residential development which will be implemented by St James, the developer. We have worked with St James to align our proposals for both the permanent layout and design of the site with their scheme. An overview diagram of the permanent layout and design of the site is provided in the site information paper. Further information on the design proposals, including materials and finishes, can be found in the Design development report, appendix Q, which was available at phase two consultation. Further details of architectural design, materials and finishes will be provided in the Design and access statement which will be submitted as part of our DCO application. The size of the site reflects our operational requirements. The amount of above-ground infrastructure has been minimised and would be located and integrated into the proposed new public realm and approved mixed-use residential development. We do not expect to have to dig up any of the site for maintenance.

Outcome

20.6.42

Need more information on design proposals, including: - not enough detail or colour - future use of site - proximity to Axis Court and Luna House - how many housing units will be built? - location, scale, arrangement, height and detailed design of kiosks - details of why the river wall is being realigned and the site greatly reduced in size - this area would have been landscaped; how much of the garden will you need to dig up for maintenance? Visual effect of ventilation columns and other permanent buildings and structures.

(LR)LBS, 8796LO, 8801LO, LR9272LO, 7111, 7243, 7800, 8299, 8426, 8649, 8750, 9349, 9357

13

20.6.43

7233

20.6.44

Location and proximity of ventilation columns to sensitive receptors.

LR13498

Our proposals have had regard to the proximity of residential N dwellings to the east and west of the site and the location of a secondary school to the south of the site. Our PEIR (volume 22, section 10) sets out a preliminary assessment of the likely significant socio-economic effects of the operational scheme, which concluded that it is unlikely that there would be any significant adverse effects (that is, major or moderate) in the operational phase that would require mitigation. A full Environmental statement will consider the operational effects, based on any new information, and this will be submitted as part of our DCO application. We are, however, revisiting our design to ensure that our proposals have minimal effect on future redevelopment of the site. We anticipate that this would comprise variations to the ventilation column and the size of the kiosk. Your comments are noted. We have sought to make the visual appearance of the ventilation columns interesting while meeting functional requirements. We are, however, revisiting our design to ensure that our proposals have minimal effect on future redevelopment of the site. We C

20.6.45

Design measures to reduce the potential effects of the proposals are unsatisfactory/ insufficient. Smokestacks cannot be made appealing and it is pointless trying to mask or 'sensitise' the structure so that they don't

7767

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-78

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns 'intrude' on the local amenities or landscape. There is no guarantee that the eventual design will look like the images in the site information papers.

Respondent ID

No.

Our response anticipate that this would comprise variations to the ventilation column and the size of the kiosk. In our site information paper we aimed to illustrate how the completed scheme could look once complete through a combination of photomontages and plans. We need to develop our final proposals in response to the findings of the consultation, which means that the designs may change. We acknowledged that there are conservation areas to the west and east of this site and listed buildings in the area in our phase two consultation material. However, as the site is currently a cleared redevelopment site enclosed by hoardings, we believe that at present it makes little contribution to the setting of these heritage assets. The location of our permanent structures would not be visible from any of these assets due to their location and scale in relation to the existing and proposed buildings surrounding the site. In developing our proposals for this site, we will continue to take into account the contribution that it could make to the historic setting. We are undertaking a heritage assessment as part of our environmental impact assessment that will identify any likely significant effects of our proposed construction activities and any mitigation required to address such effects.

Outcome

20.6.46

7996LO, 8571LO, 8768LO, 8803LO, 9105LO, 8225, 8680, 8899, 9129

20.6.47

General effect on local heritage including the 7761 Tower Bridge WHS.

20.6.48

Design proposals cannot compensate for and/or are less important than the loss of or disruption to the site and surrounding area during construction.

8795LO, 8639, 8647

Your comments are noted. We are developing a CoCP that N will set out how we would manage our construction sites to minimise disruption to nearby communities. During construction, we would require all contractors to be fully certified under the Considerate Contractors Scheme. Further details can be found in the Managing construction project information paper and draft CoCP. Following construction of the works at Chambers Wharf, the site would be redeveloped in accordance with the extant mixed-use residential planning consent, for which details of materials and landscaping would need to be submitted for approval by the LBS. Our proposals for the site have been integrated with the already consented mixed-use residential development for the site, which will be implemented by St James. We do not expect that there would be any impact on the chalk processing plant. The nearest licensed chalk abstractions are 1km to the west of the site. We would not need to dig up any part of the site for routine maintenance. Your comments are noted. N

20.6.49

Types of materials used in the design need to be reconsidered.

8899, 9312

20.6.50

Other negative design comments: - prime redevelopment site - not all of the land should be sold for redevelopment - effect on the chalk processing site - this area would have been landscaped, how much of the garden will you need to dig up for maintenance? Opposed to/not commenting on the design

7460LO, 8560LO, 8801LO, 9093LO, 8886, 9149

20.6.51

8303LO, 8632LO, 8796LO, 7767, 8456,

11

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-79

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref 20.6.52

Objections, issues and concerns because the wrong site has been selected. Opposed to/not commenting on the design because object to the project in principal.

Respondent ID 8653, 8751, 8753, 8849, 9269, LR9117 7996LO

No. 1

Our response

Outcome N

Design suggestions
Table 20.6.5 Design suggestions Ref 20.6.53 Design suggestions Improve the Thames Path as part of proposals. The Thames Path should be routed along the river front, with appropriate connections back inland and provision of cycle facilities. Improve or create new footpaths and cycle ways as part of the design, including a new Thames Path. Respondent ID GLA No. 1 Our response Outcome

Currently, the Thames Path is diverted around the site, N along Chambers Street. However a new Thames Path would be provided along the riverfront following completion of works by both Thames Water and St James. Our proposals have been designed to be incorporated into the future residential redevelopment of this site which includes a new Thames Path along the riverfront. In developing our design for this site we have ensured that our permanent above-ground structures would not compromise the future plans. The current wharf would be demolished and would not be replaced by our permanent works. The new river wall would not extend into the River Thames as much as the current wharf, and therefore the effect of the structure (including effects on local views), would be less than the existing situation. The proposed ventilation columns would be located so as to minimise visual impact, while meeting operational requirements. The designs for the site should also be considered in the context of the fact that the remainder of the site would be redeveloped for housing and other uses, which in itself would change the character of the area. The ventilation columns have been designed to meet functional and health and safety requirements and need to be the size specified in order to ensure that the tunnel can operate efficiently. The ventilation structures and electrical and control kiosk are the only above-ground permanent structures required on site. The proposed structures would be located and integrated into the proposed new public realm and approved mixed-use residential development. Your comments are noted. Following the construction works at Chambers Wharf, the site would be redeveloped in accordance with the extant mixed-use residential planning consent, for which landscaping details would need to be submitted for approval by the LBS. The approved residential development includes a new public area along the river front N

20.6.54

7111

20.6.55 20.6.56

Proposals should enhance the local area. Proposals should be in keeping with and blend into the character of the local area/ minimise visual impact.

7966, 8899 7243, 8765

2 2

N N

20.6.57

There should be no ventilation column(s) on the site.

9092LO

20.6.58 20.6.59

Design should incorporate tree planting. Design should provide suitable/more/ adequate landscaping and planting. The area behind the vents and the Thames Path should have appropriate trees and plants like Cherry Gardens, which is nearby.

7536 7111, 7243, 7695, 7800, 8225

1 5

N N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-80

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref 20.6.60 20.6.61

Design suggestions Proposals should provide some public benefit. Proposals should incorporate public/open/ green space and river facing areas be renovated as green space with full public access after construction is completed, as opposed to further built development. Proposals should use high quality materials and finishes the ventilation columns could be more pleasing to the eye. Could they be painted with local scenes or the history of the docks? The final design should be distinctive and of architectural merit/iconic/visually attractive. Proposals should incorporate the opportunity for a design competition. Design should include recreational facilities including residential moorings, a jetty and a boat stop. Design should include a marine feature, eg loan of some of the historic vessels from Wapping across the river.

Respondent ID 8886 8801LO, 7038, 8306, 8886, LR9112

No. 1 5

Our response which would be provided on completion of our works and the residential development as part of the approved plans.

Outcome N N

20.6.62

7966, 8765, 8899

20.6.63 20.6.64 20.6.65

8303LO 8303LO 7800, 8119, 8198

1 1 3

N N N

20.6.66

7800

20.6.67

Specific design amendments include: (LR)CABE, EA, 8768LO, 7157, LR9491 - relocate access further along Strand - incorporate chimneys into a structure - features of wildlife such as Black Redstart nesting - Estuary Edges guidance should inform any new flood defence or river wall designs - Thames Path should be routed along the river front, with appropriate connections back inland - provide cycle facilities - investigate ways of making the works a focal point to stimulate a more imaginative design for the public realm along the Thames Path, perhaps by setting the ventilation column at the end of a vista along the path - investigate how the generous scale of the riverside space could be better exploited. Design should incorporate public art. Other design mitigation includes: - location and design of the ventilation plant 7243, 7800, LR9491 GLA, 8653

20.6.68 20.6.69

3 2

N N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-81

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Design suggestions Respondent ID should ensure that any noise/odour impacts on nearby residents are minimised - would the land be donated to the LBS so it can be landscaped for recreational use? - 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. Designs should be environmentally friendly/ sustainable. 8801LO, LR9491

No.

Our response

Outcome

20.6.70

We agree that our development should be environmentally friendly and we have incorporated a biodiverse roof on the flat area of the ventilation building roof to encourage biodiversity.

20.7
20.7.1 20.7.2

Management of operational effects


This section sets out feedback comments received during the phase two consultation in relation to the management of operational effects at Chambers Wharf. This includes the identification of site specific issues associated with the site once it is operational and proposals for addressing these issues. During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the correct key issues associated with Chambers Wharf 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 20.7.1 and 20.7.2. Tables 20.7.3 to 20.7.35 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 20.7.1 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 36 120 0 156 57 76 23 9 48 22 54 5 18 Yes No Dont know/unsure

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-82

20 Chambers Wharf

Table 20.7.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q7b) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total 20.7.3 Number of respondents Total 0 0 34 120 0 154 36 87 31 1 35 28 59 5 26 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 Chambers Wharf once the tunnel is operational. Feedback comments are organised under common themes. The themes are: General themes: General feedback comments on the key issues General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues

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

General feedback comments on the key issues


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the identified key issues Table 20.7.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to key issues during operation Ref 20.7.4 Supportive and neutral comments The correct key issues have been identified. Respondent ID 8198 No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted and welcomed.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-83

20 Chambers Wharf

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues Table 20.7.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to key issues during operation Ref 20.7.5 Objections, issues and concerns Identification and description of potential effects and key issues is too vague/general/ not satisfactorily explained. The scale of potential effects has not been properly assessed and/or underestimated. There are more key issues than those identified in the site information paper. Respondent ID LR9272LO, 8649 No. 2 Our response Outcome

20.7.6 20.7.7

LR9280 8786

1 1

The key issues set out in the Chambers Wharf site N information paper are intended to provide a broad overview of potential effects and key issues associated with the site once it is operational. A more detailed description of N possible likely significant effects and the methodology through which they have been identified is provided in other N technical reports, including the PEIR (volume 22), Design development report, Phase two scheme development report, Site selection methodology paper and Site selection background technical paper. We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. It was imperative to provide a balanced analysis in our consultation material and we do not agree that the material was inaccurate, misleading or biased in our favour. All the material presented contained necessary information for consultees to understand our proposals and make their own judgements. Please see our response at paragraph 20.3.26 above. N

20.7.8

Information provided on the key issues is misleading/insufficient/flawed.

8649

20.7.9

More fundamental issues regarding the site's selection, its suitability and alternative sites have not been addressed/recognised. There is no guarantee that the issues identified at this stage will reflect the reality of operation.

9147LO, 7465

20.7.10

8899

We believe we have identified key issues, but nonetheless, once the tunnel is operational, we propose to undertake performance monitoring as well as regular inspection and maintenance visits that would allow us to identify any unforeseen effects and put suitable measures in place to manage them. We believe we have identified key issues, but nonetheless once the tunnel is operational, we propose to undertake performance monitoring as well as regular inspection and maintenance visits that would allow us to identify any unforeseen effects and put suitable measures in place to manage them. The PEIR (volume 22), which was available for review and comment at phase two consultation, sets out the assessment methodology and assumptions on which the environmental impact assessment and identification of key issues are based. These assumptions and methodologies reflect industry best practice, and have been subject to

20.7.11

Key issues cannot be fully identified until the design is fixed and/or the tunnel is operational.

7996LO, LR9112

20.7.12

Other operational issues included Thames Water's assumptions are incorrect.

9149

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-84

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response extensive technical engagement as part of the environmental impact assessment scoping process.

Outcome

General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues Table 20.7.5 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation Ref 20.7.13 Supportive and neutral comments Measures to address potential issues are satisfactory. Respondent ID 7404 No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted and welcomed.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues Table 20.7.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during operation Ref 20.7.14 Objections, issues and concerns Measures to address potential issues are unsatisfactory/unconvincing. Respondent ID 7996LO, 8887LO, 8653, 8783, 9349, LR9117 No. 6 Our response The measures set out in the Chambers Wharf site information paper are intended to provide a broad overview of how we intend to address potential issues associated with the site. Further information can be found in the PEIR (volume 22). 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. Please see our response at paragraph 20.3.26 above. Outcome N

20.7.15

Measures to address potential effects are unsatisfactory/irrelevant as the wrong site has been identified/alternatives have not been properly considered. Measures to address potential effects are unsatisfactory because the scale and/or significance of the issues has been underestimated/not properly assessed.

7465, 8751, LR9112

20.7.16

8653, 8751, 9149, LR9280

The key issues set out in the site information paper are N intended to provide a broad overview of potential effects and key issues associated with the site once it is operational. It is not, however, an exhaustive list. Further potential issues associated with the site and measures to address these are set out in the PEIR (volume 22). We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment, which will include a comprehensive assessment of likely significant effects arising from the proposals. The findings of the assessment, together with any recommendations for mitigation, will be available as part of the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. We have sought to avoid or eliminate potential likely significant effects wherever possible, both by developing robust technical solutions to potential issues such as odour, and through our proposals for the permanent site design N

20.7.17

Measures proposed to address potential effects may minimise or manage them, but they cannot be eliminated/prevented.

7756

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-85

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref 20.7.18

Objections, issues and concerns Measures suggested to address the issues show no commitment towards/devolves Thames Water of its responsibility to deal with the effects arising from their proposals. Information provided on key issues and measures to address this is misleading/ insufficient.

Respondent ID 7996LO

No. 1

Our response and layout. If a DCO is granted we anticipate a series of conditions that would control the development. We expect that the conditions would require the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental statement submitted with the application, and other commitments, to be implemented. It was imperative to provide a balanced analysis in our consultation material and we do not agree that the material was inaccurate, misleading or biased in our favour. All the material presented contained information necessary for consultees to understand our proposals and make their own judgements.

Outcome N

20.7.19

8225

20.7.20

Thames Water has made the decision before embarking on consultation.

8632LO

The Changes project information paper, which summarises N the principal changes emerging 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 being 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. The Consultation report will set out how we have taken into account the feedback received across all phases of consultation. An integral part of the pre-application process is the legal N requirement that we consult with the communities and stakeholders in the vicinity of the tunnel route and the sites we intend to use in constructing and operating the project. We must take account of all the feedback comments received in response to consultation. We also need to comply with advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State in respect of the pre-application consultation requirements. The process is intended to be open and transparent and to ensure that project promoters give careful consideration to consultation responses and, where necessary, adjust their proposals accordingly. We are committed to this approach. At phase one consultation, we consulted on need to reduce the amount of sewage entering the River Thames, the option of a storage and transfer tunnel to address CSO discharges, the route of the tunnel, and our preferred construction sites. We also sought views our initial design proposals for the sites. Consistent with the legal requirement, the scheme we are consulting on at phase two consultation takes account of

20.7.21

Consultation feedback does not appear to have been taken into account by Thames Water.

9092LO, 9269

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-86

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response Outcome the responses we received from phase one consultation and further engineering design refinement identified by the project team. 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. The Consultation report, will set out how we have taken into account the feedback received across all phases of consultation. Cost was one of the considerations that informed site N assessments, but it is not an overriding factor that outweighs all other engineering, planning, environmental, community, property and wider economic considerations. High acquisition costs alone would not outweigh positive considerations such as use of brownfield land, conformity with planning policy, and the ability to construct/operate the proposed works on the site. Equally, a low value site would not become our preferred site if there were significant planning, environmental or community concerns associated with its use. In determining our preferred site, we made a balanced judgement, taking planning, environment, engineering, property and community considerations into account. We believe we have identified key issues, but nonetheless once the tunnel is operational, we propose to undertake performance monitoring as well as regular inspection and maintenance visits that would allow us to identify any unforeseen effects and put suitable measures in place to manage them. N

20.7.22

Other issues and feedback comments relating to measures to address operational issues included: - mitigation measures will only be satisfactory if Thames Water takes factors other than profit into account

GLA, 8560LO, 8849

- it is not possible to assess the effectiveness of the proposed measures because completion of the project is so far in the future.

Air quality and odour


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour Table 20.7.7 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour during operation Ref 20.7.23 Supportive and neutral comments Proposals will ensure that odour is managed; also the requirements for a ventilation shaft plus occasional access for maintenance could be satisfactorily integrated into new housing development. Respondent ID GLA, LR9274LO No. 2 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-87

20 Chambers Wharf

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour Table 20.7.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during operation Ref 20.7.24 20.7.25 20.7.26 Objections, issues and concerns Dust and dirt arising from operational activities. Dust and dirt arising from activities associated with tunnel operation. Effects on health arising from dust, odour, air pollution and reduced air quality; H2S is a broad spectrum poison that attacks a variety of vital systems. Respondent ID 9084LO, 8834 9085LO 9093LO, 7761, 8624, 8646, 8783, 9446 No. 2 1 6 Our response We do not anticipate that there would be any dust arising from the operation of the tunnel or from general inspection and maintenance activities at this site. Our preliminary assessment of likely significant air quality effects as reported in our PEIR (volume 22, section 4) did not identify any significant effects. Further assessment will be undertaken as part of our on-going environmental impact assessment work and this will be reported in the Environmental statement to be submitted with our DCO application. We are also preparing a Health impact assessment for submission with the application. The Health impact assessment will assess the likely significant potential effects of the project on the health of identified vulnerable groups. If significant effects are identified, appropriate mitigation would be proposed. Our preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of odour associated with operation of the tunnel is set out in our PEIR (volume 22, section 4). The PEIR concludes that when the tunnel is operational no significant effects are predicted in relation to odour or air pollution. We do not anticipate any air pollution as we have developed an Air management plan to ensure the tunnel is operated in such a way to control odour. At this site we are proposing the use of a passive ventilation system that would draw air through the tunnel before cleaning the air using carbon filters that would absorb possible odour before air leaves the ventilation equipment. After treatment air from the tunnel would be then be discharged via a ventilation column, further mitigating any possible impacts on local air quality. The ventilation facilities would be designed to minimise the release of untreated air from the tunnel system and approximately 99 per cent of the time during the average year, air released from the tunnel would be treated and would not have any odours. This arrangement meets the Environment Agencys odour criteria. A further quantitative assessment will be presented in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. The assessment methodologies are based on best practice and have been agreed with the LBS. Outcome N N N

20.7.27

Potential air quality and odour effects will be 7360, 8751 greater than those set out in the consultation material. It is not clear what the scale of air quality and odour effects will be; the assessment to date is very vague. Effect of odour arising from operation of the tunnel. 8649

20.7.28

20.7.29

(LR)CCW, (LR)LBS, 8410LO, 8552LO, 8569LO, 8571LO, 8801LO, 8887LO, 9107LO, 10886, 10940, 7166, 7233, 7761, 7767, 8486, 8646, 8764, 8783, 8786, 9129, 9358, 9496, 9497, LR13498 8410LO, 8561LO, 8803LO, 8646, 8647, 8712 9093LO, LR9279 8410LO, 8552LO, 8561LO, 9084LO, 9085LO, 7621, 8646, 8712, 8783 9446

25

20.7.30 20.7.31 20.7.32 20.7.33

Effect of odour on residential amenity. More information is needed on air quality and odour effects. General air pollution effects arising from the operation of the tunnel. Effect on air quality arising from the operation of the tunnel.

6 2 9 1

N N N N

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-88

20 Chambers Wharf

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour 20.7.34 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 20.7.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation Ref 20.7.35 20.7.36 Objections, issues and concerns Use an alternative site. More information is needed on mitigation, including: - odour - Air management plan - would Thames Water be willing to guarantee that this would not occur? Respondent ID 7233 9107LO, 7800, 8299, 8456, 8750, 8751, 8953, 9349, LR9117 No. 1 9 Our response Please see our response at paragraph 20.3.26 above. Outcome N

20.7.37

Mitigation proposed to address the issues is inadequate/insufficient, including: - unless you can guarantee no odour, there should be no development - there should be contingency plans to eliminate the smells - if flash flooding rapidly fills the tunnel and causes rapid expulsion of odours, would the carbon filters have sufficient time to treat the air?

7490, 7966, 8566, 8624, 8647, 8783, 9357, 9496

Details of proposed mitigation measures for the site (odour N control) were set out in the PEIR (volume 22, section 4) as part of our phase two consultation alongside the operational proposals outlined in the Air management plan. More details of the likely significant effects of operation on air quality and odour will be set out in the Environmental statement and will be submitted with our DCO application. If significant effects are identified, appropriate mitigation would be proposed. We would be responsible for the ongoing management and maintenance of the systems to ensure that they meet operational standards. The proposed odour control units would contain activated N carbon filters. This is standard technology used worldwide and in the UK. For example the foul sewage pumping station for the Olympic Park in Stratford has just installed this type of odour control system. If a Development Consent Order is granted we anticipate a series of requirements (similar to planning conditions) that would control the development. We expect that the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application would form part of these requirements. The tunnel ventilation system would have a number of redundancies built in and work as a complete system so that, in the unlikely event of a failure at one site, the required through-put of air could be maintained by increased ventilation elsewhere on the system. The systems would be monitored and replacements for elements such as the passive filters planned in advance of their life's end. Details of proposed mitigation measures for the site were set out in the PEIR (volume 22, section 4) as part of our phase two consultation alongside the operational proposals outlined in the Air management plan. More details of the likely significant effects of operation on air quality and odour will be set out in the Environmental statement and will be submitted with our DCO application. If significant effects are identified, appropriate mitigation would be proposed. Odour is subjective and therefore the project is obliged to apply the Environment Agencys odour criterion which states that we should not exceed 1.5 odour units per cubic meter of air for 98 per cent of the time during the average year. We would achieve this criterion at all sites. It should be noted that 1.5

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-89

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response odour units per cubic metre is barely perceivable by most people and that the average back ground odour in cities is between five to 60 odour units per cubic metre. Our Air management plan sets out that under extreme conditions (about once every 15 years) generally associated with rapid tunnel filling, air displacement rates can be high and exceed the design airflow rate. This high pressure air would be released via weighted dampers and exhausted into the atmosphere for a short time, estimated to be less than ten minutes. The proposed odour control units would contain activated carbon filters. This is standard technology used worldwide and in the UK. For example the sewage pumping station for the Olympic Park in Stratford has just installed this type of odour control system. If a DCO is granted we anticipate a series of requirements (conditions) that would control the development. We expect that the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application would form part of these requirements. The tunnel ventilation system would have a number of redundancies built in and work as a complete system so that, in the unlikely event of a failure at one site, the required through-put of air could be maintained by increased ventilation elsewhere on the system. The systems would be monitored and replacements for elements such as the passive filters planned in advance of their life's end. We anticipate that 100 per cent of the air exhausted at Chambers Wharf in a typical year of rainfall events would be treated. The ventilation structures proposed have been designed to ensure that any air that is released would be directed appropriately. There would not be site enclosures for this purpose once construction is complete. There would be no dust generation during the operational phase.

Outcome

20.7.38

No guarantee that the mitigation proposed will be delivered.

8801LO, 8887LO, 7165, 7490, 7761, 8234, 8486, 8566, 8567, 8751, 9357, 9497

12

20.7.39

Enclose site to minimise dust and air pollution migration.

9084LO

Historic environment
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment 20.7.40 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the historic environment during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment Table 20.7.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during operation Ref 20.7.41 Objections, issues and concerns General effect on local heritage arising from the permanent maintenance and operation of the site. Respondent ID 7166 No. 1 Our response Outcome

The operational site layout and visualisations are provided in N our Chambers Wharf site information paper and our Design project information paper sets out the common design

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-90

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref 20.7.42

Objections, issues and concerns Permanent effect on the conservation area.

Respondent ID 7761

No. 1

Our response principles including respecting each site's individual context and surroundings. Therefore, our approach to design has sought to preserve and enhance the setting of heritage assets. We are continuing to work with English Heritage and the LBS on design elements.

Outcome N

20.7.43

Permanent effect on the Tower Bridge WHS. 8300

An Assessment of the local setting of the Tower of London N and guidelines for its management was published in August 2010 by the Tower of London WHS Consultative Committee. This document identifies (at page 8) the area which constitutes the setting of the WHS, which extends to a point on the River Thames equivalent to Maguire Street. The setting is also identified in the WHS Management Plan (para 2.4.6, page 38). As the site is not in the defined setting of the WHS, we conclude that our works would not affect the designation. We also note that the designation relates to the Tower of London and not Tower Bridge.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment 20.7.44 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 20.7.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during operation Ref 20.7.45 Objections, issues and concerns Other heritage mitigation, including: assess impact of tidal erosion on foreshore archaeology. Respondent ID (LR)LBS No. 1 Our response Outcome

We recognise that the site is in the locally designated N Borough, Bermondsey and River Archaeological Priority Zone. Our phase two consultation material included a preliminary assessment of likely significant archaeological effects as detailed the PEIR (volume 22, section 7). Our preliminary assessment identified a high potential for palaeo-environmental remains that could be of low or medium significance. The desk-based study of the site did not predict any finds of heritage assets of very high significance that might merit a mitigation strategy of permanent preservation in situ. An assessment of the likely significant effects on the historic environment is being completed as part of our environmental impact assessment. We are consulting with English Heritage as part of this process.

Land quality and contamination


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to land quality and contamination 20.7.46 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to land quality and contamination during operation.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-91

20 Chambers Wharf

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination Table 20.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination during operation Ref 20.7.47 Objections, issues and concerns Potential for pollution incidents (such as sewage leaks) once the tunnel is operational. Respondent ID 7767 No. 1 Our response The design of our works includes a primary and secondary lining for the shafts and tunnel in order to guarantee water tightness. Our PEIR (volume 22, section 8) considers the likely significant operational potential for the degradation of new structures from attack by deleterious substances that may in turn reduce the integrity of the structure (and could promote leakage of sewage through the walls of the shaft). The inclusion of the proposed measures, such as suitable concrete mix design and soil remediation (as necessary), mean that the impact would be low, with a negligible (not significant) effect overall. It is possible that elevated gases may impact on proposed above-ground structures. However, these very limited and measures, such as site investigation, gas risk assessment and the incorporation of measures into building design (such as gas resistant membranes if necessary), mean that the effect would be negligible. At Chambers Wharf and other sites, we are retaining the possibility to discharge into the river Thames if the system cannot cope with the inflows. At the scoping stage we proposed to scope out land quality operational effects since treating the site would ensure that future site users would not be exposed to any below-ground contamination. In response to scoping opinions from both the local authorities and the Environment Agency, we assessed these effects in the PEIR (volume 22, section 8) and will also do so in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. Outcome N

20.7.48

Other land quality and contamination issue: land quality as an assessment topic has been scoped out of the environmental impact assessment for the operational phase of the project but still have concerns around risk of potential contamination.

7261

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination 20.7.49 20.7.50 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
20.7.51 No feedback comments were received in relation to lighting during operation.

Natural environment (aquatic)


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) 20.7.52 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during operation.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-92

20 Chambers Wharf

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) Table 20.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during operation Ref 20.7.53 Objections, issues and concerns Effect on foreshore habitat(s), although of poor species diversity. Respondent ID LR9491 No. 1 Our response Outcome

We do not propose any permanent structures in the N foreshore; therefore we do not anticipate that there would be any negative impacts on habitats. However, it is likely that there would be opportunities for improved or new habitats on the additional foreshore that would be created when the current jetty is removed. Intercepting the CSO would create improvements in the water quality of the River Thames and the improvements to the sewerage system capacity would result in far fewer low dissolved oxygen events and therefore fewer mass fish mortalities.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) 20.7.54 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) Table 20.7.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during operation Ref 20.7.55 Objections, issues and concerns Provision of compensation habitat, including refuges for fish and other species. Respondent ID LR9491 No. 1 Our response We have completed a preliminary assessment of the likely significant effects of the proposed development which was presented in our PEIR (volume 22, section 5) at phase two consultation. At this site we have not identified the need to provide compensation for aquatic habitat, as the effects of the construction would be temporary and habitats are expected to recover once the works are complete. 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 Intercepting the CSOs would lead to improvements in water quality and the improvements to the capacity of the sewerage system would result in far fewer low dissolved oxygen events and therefore fewer mass fish mortalities. We do not propose any permanent structures in the foreshore and therefore we do not anticipate any negative impacts on habitats. However, it is likely that there would be opportunities for improved or new habitats on the additional foreshore that would be created when the current jetty is removed. Outcome N

20.7.56

Other natural environment mitigation; accumulative land-take of a series of structures along the River Thames, there should be considerations to secure significant positive gains for fish and other aquatic species.

LR9491

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-93

20 Chambers Wharf

Natural environment (terrestrial)


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 20.7.15 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Ref 20.7.57 Supportive and neutral comments Supports efforts to minimise the long-term impacts to biodiversity and secure improvements. Respondent ID LR9491 No. 1 Our response Your feedback comments are noted and welcomed.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 20.7.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Ref 20.7.58 20.7.59 Objections, issues and concerns General long-term effects on local wildlife. General environmental/ecological impact arising from the operation and maintenance of the site. Respondent ID 8410LO, 8783 8796LO, 9269 No. 2 2 Our response As stated in para 6.1.3 of our PEIR (volume 22, section 6), significant operational effects on terrestrial ecology as a result of the tunnel operation and the infrequent maintenance visits are not anticipated therefore this has not been assessed. A full assessment will be presented in our Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. This will consider the likely significant effects of the development based on a methodology set out in our PEIR. Outcome N N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) 20.7.60 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) Table 20.7.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during operation Ref 20.7.61 20.7.62 Objections, issues and concerns Provide compensation habitat; put nesting and roosting boxes up. Maximise opportunities to enhance biodiversity through an effective mitigation package. Respondent ID 7404 8765, LR9491 No. 1 2 Our response As stated in para 6.1.3 of our PEIR (volume 22, section 6), significant operational effects on terrestrial ecology as a result of the tunnel operation and the infrequent maintenance visits are not anticipated therefore this has not been assessed. A full assessment will be presented in our Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application. This will consider the likely significant effects of the development based on a methodology set out in our PEIR. All permanent works would be located within the defined site boundary. Outcome N N

20.7.63

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

LR9491

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-94

20 Chambers Wharf

Noise and vibration


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to noise and vibration 20.7.64 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 20.7.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during operation Ref 20.7.65 20.7.66 20.7.67 20.7.68 20.7.69 20.7.70 20.7.71 20.7.72 20.7.73 Objections, issues and concerns Potential effects will be greater than those set out in the consultation material. It is not clear what the scale of the effect will be; the assessment to date is very vague. General noise effects arising from the operation of the tunnel. General vibration effects from filtration plant. Proximity to a residential/densely populated area. Operational noise including ambient noise creep. Underestimated impact on the community; legacy of noise and pollution Noise from machinery on the site. Disturbance from future site maintenance activities. Respondent ID 8410LO 8649 8410LO, 9084LO, 9085LO, 7360 8786 7621 LR13381 8410LO, 8561LO, 8803LO, 7360, 8712 7243, 8303LO, 8786, 8953, 9357 7761 No. 1 1 4 1 1 1 5 5 1 Our response Our PEIR (volume 22, section 9) sets out a preliminary assessment of the likely significant operational noise and vibration effects of the proposed scheme. No significant effects were identified, subject to appropriate noise control measures for equipment in order to ensure the targets in BS4142 are met. Therefore we do not expect any effect on occupiers or users of adjacent or nearby properties, businesses or facilities, or on any sensitive structures or equipment. The Environmental statement that will be submitted with our DCO application will provide a full assessment of noise and vibration effects. Outcome N N N N N N N N Any planned maintenance, as detailed in our site information N paper, would be undertaken during normal working hours and visits would be managed in order to avoid disruption to local residents, businesses and users of affected public areas as far as possible. We consider that we have undertaken a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. We carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. This included our PEIR (volume 22, section 9), which sets out our initial assessment of noise and vibration from operation of the site. The PEIR assessment used Defra's London noise maps. 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 have provided is sufficient. N

20.7.74

More information is needed on noise and vibration.

9093LO, 7767

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration 20.7.75 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during operation.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-95

20 Chambers Wharf

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration Table 20.7.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during operation Ref 20.7.76 Objections, issues and concerns You cannot address noise and vibration questions so close to housing. Respondent ID 9105LO, 7621 No. 3 Our response Our preliminary assessment that was set out in our PEIR (volume 22, section 9) considered operational noise and assumed that, as part of the design process, noise control measures would be included for all plant items in order to limit noise increases to within appropriate limits to avoid disturbance, in accordance with BS4142. These measures are being built into our detailed designs and specifications for this site. Outcome N

Open space and recreation


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to open space and recreation Table 20.7.20 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to open space and recreation during operation Ref 20.7.77 Supportive and neutral comments The key issue of protecting public green space has been identified and acted upon accordingly by the decision to purchase the brownfield site of Chambers Wharf. Respondent ID 7624 No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation Table 20.7.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during operation Ref 20.7.78 Objections, issues and concerns Adverse impact on local green spaces in the area Respondent ID 8410LO No. 1 Our response Our permanent structures would be located to minimise any impacts on any local open space areas and are unlikely to be visible from existing green spaces due to the surrounding development. Outcome N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation 20.7.79 20.7.80 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on open space and recreation during operation.

Planning and development


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to planning and development Table 20.7.22 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to planning and development during operation Ref 20.7.81 20.7.82 Supportive and neutral comments Proposal will support redevelopment of the site and/or surrounding area. Respondent ID 8936 No. 1 1 Our response Your comments are noted and welcomed.

Final operational buildings can be 8306 incorporated unobtrusively into the proposed

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-96

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Supportive and neutral comments residential development.

Respondent ID

No.

Our response

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development Table 20.7.23 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development during operation Ref 20.7.83 Objections, issues and concerns Conflict with emerging regeneration proposals/future developments and opportunities to create new local homes. Conflict with implementation of existing planning permission for the site. Conflict with implementation of existing planning permission for the site and the need to create new local homes. Proposals will lead to planning blight. Respondent ID 7621, 8753, 9446 No. 3 Our response We have worked with St James, the developers, to develop a programme of works that would facilitate the construction and operation of the project and phase the commencement of their development. We have also aligned our proposals for the construction and permanent layout and design of the site. Outcome C

20.7.84 20.7.85

7996LO, 8796LO, 7621 7996LO, 8796LO, 7621

3 3

C C

20.7.86

8571LO, 7767

We do not expect that operation of the tunnel in this location would lead to planning blight. Our proposals for the permanent layout and design of the site would complement the existing planning permission for redevelopment and we have discussed our proposals with the developer. We have worked with St James, the developers, to develop a programme of works that would facilitate the construction of the project and phase the commencement of their development. We have also aligned our proposals for the construction and permanent layout and design of the site. Regarding comments on the tenure of proposed housing development, this matter was addressed by the LBS when it granted planning permission for the site.

20.7.87

Other planning and development feedback comments included: - what is going to happen to the site after construction? - the test for post construction residential development will be if it is for the open market.

8796LO, 8647

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of planning and development 20.7.88 20.7.89 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of planning and development during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address key issues the effects of planning and development No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of planning and development issues during operation.

Socio-economic
Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects Table 20.7.24 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects during operation Ref 20.7.90 Supportive and neutral comments After the works by Thames Water the area can be returned enhanced to the community. Respondent ID 7155 No. 1 Our response Your comment is noted.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-97

20 Chambers Wharf

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects Table 20.7.25 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during operation Ref 20.7.91 Objections, issues and concerns Potential effects will be greater than those set out in the consultation material; social impact of the project has not been considered. Effect on tourism and associated revenue which will discourage visitors. Effect on the local economy; driving out wealth from the area, long-term effect on under privileged area. Respondent ID 8796LO, LR9272LO No. 2 Our response Our PEIR (volume 22, section 10) provides a preliminary assessment of the likely significant socio-economic effects of the operation. It concluded that it is unlikely that there would be any significant adverse effects (that is, major or moderate) in the operational phase that would require mitigation. Furthermore, our preliminary assessment of the scheme has identified that there is only one business close to the site (offices in Luna House). A full Environmental statement will consider the operational effects based on any new information and will be submitted as part of our DCO application. Outcome N

20.7.92 20.7.93

8558 7261, 7761, 9206

1 3

N N

20.7.94 20.7.95 20.7.96

Lasting effect on local area, including image, 8552LO, 8887LO, 9206 reputation and regeneration. Detrimental effect on business operations if they cannot get loans/mortgages. Effect on property prices; financial impacts on landowners, how will an operational sewage site be attractive to buyers? Effect on the ability to sell/rent property. Effect on quality of life: this is Central London where people come to enjoy history and live in unique area. Effect on human health; schoolchildren and 6,000 residents. 7761, 8834 7262LO, 7274LO, 7243, 7261, 8635, 9206

3 2 6

N N

20.7.97 20.7.98

8802LO, 9206 8887LO, 9147LO, LR9271LO, 7166, 8738, LR9136, 7262LO, 8410LO, 8887LO, 9093LO, LR9272LO, 8738 7767 7460LO, 8410LO, 7166, 7621, 7756, 9496, 9497 LR9271LO, 8300, 8653, 8834, 9496, 9497, LR9279 8410LO, 8796LO, 8887LO, 9105LO, 7756, 7761, 8567, 8834, 9446, 9496, 9497 8887LO 8796LO, 8624

2 6

Once the site works are complete we do not believe that the N permanent works at this site would affect the value of property or the ability to sell or rent property, amenity, quality of life or health. N N

20.7.99

6 1 7

N N N

20.7.100 Effect of the operational site on residential amenity. 20.7.101 Chambers Wharf is a quiet residential area and the site will eventually have extensive apartment residences. 20.7.102 The area around the permanent site is densely populated. 20.7.103 Proximity to community and social amenities such as schools. 20.7.104 Disturbance from operations. 20.7.105 Other socio-economic issue: learning impact on children, not enough consideration or statements of Corporate Responsibility regarding the long-term health effects for residents, especially very young children. 20.7.106 Other socio-economic issue: learning impact on children, not enough consideration or

7 11 1 2

N N N N

8796LO, 8624

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-98

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns statements of Corporate Responsibility regarding the long-term health effects for residents, especially very young children.

Respondent ID

No.

Our response

Outcome

20.7.107 Proposal will require homes to be relocated ; 9105LO, 7761, 9206 people will not move into the area it they cannot get loans/mortgages. 20.7.108 Proposals will create increased opportunities for crime, vandalism and antisocial behaviour. 8887LO, 8646

We do not believe that our proposals would create opportunities for crime, vandalism and anti-social behaviour as we would use robust materials and they would be incorporated into the future public realm. On completion of our works, the residential developer would complete the approved residential development. Our permanent structures would be in this residential development and designed to be compatible with the residential use and public use of the new Thames Path. We would need to access this site only infrequently for maintenance purposes and on these occasions we would operate within the relevant health and safety requirements. As set out in our site information paper, vehicles required for site maintenance would normally comprise a small van every three to six months. Periodically (approximately every ten years) there would be a more detailed site inspection, which would require more vehicles, including two cranes. Given the infrequency of these inspections and the low number of vehicles involved we do not consider that there would be any effect.

20.7.109 Health and safety issues associated with the 8796LO, LR9272LO, 7756, 7761 site; less safe for children playing nearby.

20.7.110 Disturbance from future site maintenance activities. 20.7.111 Effect of site maintenance and operation on the local community. 20.7.112 General disruption associated with permanent operation and maintenance of the site. 20.7.113 Effect of site maintenance and operation on the local community. 20.7.114 General disruption associated with permanent operation and maintenance of the site.

9107LO, 9147LO, 7761 8410LO, 9083LO, 9084LO, 9085LO, 9086LO, 9092LO, 7261, 7621, 8635, 8776, 8783, 9206, 9269 9147LO

3 13

N N

8410LO, 9083LO, 9084LO, 9085LO, 9086LO, 9092LO, 7261, 7621, 8635, 8776, 8783, 9206, 9269 9147LO

13

20.7.115 More information is needed on socioLR9112 economic effects; it is not clear what this site will turn into in ten to15 years time.

We are aware of the planning permission that has been granted for the proposed site and are working with the developer, St James, to design our proposals to complement the development aspirations for the site. In the longer term, we anticipate that the site would be developed for housing. Our permanent above-ground structures would be incorporated in the landscaping proposals for this development.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects 20.7.116 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during operation.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-99

20 Chambers Wharf

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects Table 20.7.26 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during operation Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 9105LO, 7755 No. 2 Our response We believe that we have set out a range of measures that would mitigate the effects of our operations at this site and that there would not be a need for any relocation. Outcome N

20.7.117 Thames Waters only re-course for mitigating these is to purchase properties it affects.

Structures and utilities


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to structures and utilities 20.7.118 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 20.7.27 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during operation Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 8410LO, 9105LO No. 2 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. On completion, we do not anticipate that there would be any subsidence. Outcome N

20.7.119 Risk of subsidence arising from permanent works.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities 20.7.120 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 20.7.121 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during operation.

Townscape and visual


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to townscape and visual effects Table 20.7.28 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to townscape and visual effects during operation Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID 8791 No. 1 Our response Your feedback is noted and welcomed.

20.7.122 Proposals will improve the image and character of the area.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects Table 20.7.29 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during operation Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 8751 No. 1 Our response Outcome

20.7.123 Potential townscape and visual effects will be greater than those set out in the consultation material.

A preliminary assessment of likely significant townscape and N visual effects has been undertaken and is presented in the PEIR (volume 22, section 11). A further townscape and visual impact assessment is being undertaken as part of our environmental impact assessment, in consultation with the LBS and other stakeholders, and will be presented in the Environmental statement to be submitted with our DCO

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-100

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID 7262LO, 8571LO, 7233, 8299 8834 8558, 8751

No. 4 1 2

Our response application. The indicative site layout and visualisations for this site are provided in our Chambers Wharf site information paper, and our Design project information paper sets out the design principles applied to each site, including respecting the individual context and surroundings of each site. A preliminary assessment of likely significant townscape and visual effects has also been undertaken and is presented in the PEIR (volume 22, section 11). Our approach to design has sought to preserve and enhance the setting of the site. The ventilation structure and an electrical and control kiosk are the only above-ground structures required on site. These would be located in the public area surrounding the proposed mixed-use development. We will continue to develop our designs of the permanent structures to ensure visual impact from our works is minimised. An assessment of likely significant effects of the final design on townscape character and views will be presented in our Environmental statement, which will form part of our DCO application.

Outcome N N N

20.7.124 Visual effect of permanent buildings and structures. 20.7.125 Effect of permanent structures and buildings on the character of the local area. 20.7.126 Effect of permanent structures and buildings on the character of the riverside/river frontage. 20.7.127 Effect of permanent structures and buildings on major London landmarks.

8558

20.7.128 Effect on local views (view towards Tower Bridge).

8751

A preliminary assessment of likely significant townscape and N visual effects has been undertaken and is presented in the PEIR (volume 22, section 11). We are developing this further with a townscape and visual impact assessment as part of our environmental impact assessment, which will be submitted with our DCO application. This will identify any likely significant effects of our proposed operational development, and any mitigation required to address such effects. The impact on a number of viewpoints, including those westward toward Tower Bridge, is assessed in the PIER. We assessed that the change to the setting of the River Thames with the introduction of a new area of public realm and above-ground structures would have a minor to moderate beneficial effect.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual 20.7.129 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual during operation. Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual Table 20.7.30 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on townscape and visual during operation Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 7243 7233 No. 1 1 Our response A preliminary assessment of likely significant townscape and visual effects has been undertaken and is presented in the PEIR (volume 22, section 11). A process of iterative design and assessment is on-going and the projects commitment to good design would maximise beneficial effects on local views and townscape character. This includes careful design of built structures and associated Outcome N N

20.7.130 More information is needed on mitigation of townscape and visual effects. 20.7.131 Mitigation proposed to address townscape and visual effects is inadequate/insufficient.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-101

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response Outcome landscape design to ensure that they would fit in with the character of the area. We are developing this further with a townscape and visual impact assessment as part of our environmental impact assessment that will be submitted with our DCO application. This will identify any likely significant effects of our proposed operational development, and any mitigation required to address such effects. The approach to designing the ventilation columns for the C scheme has been informed by the technical requirements for managing air quality, as well as architectural townscape considerations. The height of the columns in this location is subject to on-going design and the final scheme will be submitted as part of our DCO application. We are currently considering our design for the ventilation column at this site.

20.7.132 The height of the ventilation column should be reduced to minimise effects on the local townscape and views.

7233

Transport and access


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access Table 20.7.31 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access during operation Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID LR9274LO, LR9280 No. 2 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.

20.7.133 Support proposed permanent site access.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access Table 20.7.32 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during operation Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 8649 No. 1 Our response Our PEIR (volume 22, section 12) sets out a preliminary assessment of the transport effects of the operational phase of the development. A full Transport assessment is being prepared for submission as part of our DCO application. As set out in our site information paper, vehicles required for site maintenance would normally comprise a small van every three to six months. Periodically (approximately every ten years) there would be a more detailed site inspection, which would require more vehicles, including two cranes. Given the infrequency of these inspections and the low number of vehicles involved we do not consider that there would be a traffic effect. Outcome N

20.7.134 It is not clear what the scale of transport effects will be; the assessment to date is very vague. 20.7.135 Disruption to the use of the Thames Path caused by permanent works. 20.7.136 Maintenance traffic will cause traffic congestion. 20.7.137 Effect of maintenance traffic on the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and local residents. 20.7.138 Effect of traffic and vehicles required for site maintenance. 20.7.139 Effect of disruption, diversion or closure of roads on access to local amenities. 20.7.140 Proposed permanent site access is unsuitable; access by the river has not been addressed.

8566 8410LO, 8635 7756 8803LO, 8552LO, 7761, 8628, 9357 9093LO 7695

1 2 1 5 1 1

N N N N N

As shown in our Chambers Wharf site information paper, access to the site for maintenance purposes would be via Loftie Street. We would discuss access to the public realm areas proposed by the St James development as part of their future estate management plans.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-102

20 Chambers Wharf

Ref

Objections, issues and concerns

Respondent ID

No.

Our response The maintenance works would require access to the plant and structures. Therefore it is unlikely to be feasible to access these from the River Thames.

Outcome

20.7.141 More information is needed on operational transport effects including the access to shaft for maintenance.

7460LO, 9357

We carefully considered the information we made available N at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. The information was based on our preliminary transport assessment, which is still being developed, and we will discuss the details further with TfL and the LBS to ensure that any significant transport effects are identified in the Environmental statement to be submitted as part of our DCO application.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access 20.7.142 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 20.7.33 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during operation Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 8614, 8653 No. 2 Our response The operational effects of the site in terms of transport effects would be very limited, if any. Therefore we do not believe that it would be necessary to provide any mitigation measures. This position will be reviewed as part of the transport assessment for the site, and if this identifies significant operational transport effects, appropriate mitigation would be proposed. If a Development Consent Order is granted we anticipate a series of requirements (similar to planning conditions) that would control the development. We expect that the mitigation measures set out in the Environmental statement that will be submitted with the application would form part of these requirements. At this location, the route of the Thames Path would be returned to its riverside alignment once the works are complete. Details of the site maintenance activities were set out in our site information paper. The maintenance works would require access to the plant and structures and therefore it is unlikely that it would be feasible to access these from the River Thames. Outcome N

20.7.143 More information is needed on transport mitigation; you do not outline much about the maintenance of the site. 20.7.144 Mitigation proposed to address permanent transport and access issues is inadequate/ insufficient; site access from Jamaica Road (A200) and traffic congestion in the area are not satisfactorily dealt with. 20.7.145 There is no guarantee that the mitigation proposed will be delivered.

8297, 8300

7490

20.7.146 Provide a suitable Thames Path on completion. 20.7.147 Use the river to undertake maintenance work, and for on-going site access.

8249, 8299

8628

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-103

20 Chambers Wharf

Water and flood risk


Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to water and flood risk 20.7.148 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 20.7.34 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk during operation Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID (LR)LBS, 8410LO, 7767 No. 3 Our response Our PEIR (volume 22, section 15) sets out a preliminary assessment of likely significant effects on flood risk (level one) in line with the requirements of national policy and considers flooding from the sea (and tidal sources), rivers, land and surface water runoff, and groundwater. As stated in our PEIR, the site is in flood zone 3 where there is a high flood risk. Our modelling to date indicates that the operational scheme would not require compensatory flood storage in this location. However, as our designs develop we will review the operational effects on flood risk to determine any requirements for storage. A level two flood risk assessment will be presented in the Environmental statement as part of our DCO application and will identify any appropriate mitigation. We would reinstate the existing river wall to maintain the flood defences and all our permanent structures would be located on the land behind the wall. Therefore, we do not consider that this would have any effect on the flood defence in this location. We are not proposing any permanent structures in the river or the foreshore, therefore we do not consider that there would be any likely impact on river navigation. Outcome N

20.7.149 Effect on flood risk in particular surface water flooding from run-off.

20.7.150 Effect of permanent structures and operational activities on existing flood defences.

8887LO

20.7.151 Effect of permanent structures in the river on 13379LO river flows and currents (hydrology). 20.7.152 Effect of permanent structures and operational activities on tidal flow. 8410LO, 8783

1 2

N N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk 20.7.153 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 of water and flood risk Table 20.7.35 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during operation Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID (LR)LBS (LR)LBS No. 1 1 Our response When the findings of soak-away tests and a contamination study are complete we will determine the feasibility of SuDS for this site and, where relevant, incorporate SuDS into our site design. Outcome N N

20.7.154 Incorporation of SuDS (sustainable urban drainage systems). 20.7.155 Other water mitigation including site specific methodology and risk assessment for surface water and sewer overload flood events.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-104

20 Chambers Wharf

20.8
20.8.1 20.8.2

Our view of the way forward


We received a range of feedback on our proposals for this site, including supportive and neutral comments and objections, issues and concerns. We took all comments received into account in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008. In light of the feedback that we received, we believe that no new information has been highlighted that would change the conclusions of our site selection process to date. Chambers Wharf therefore remains our preferred site to drive the main tunnel to Abbey Mills Pumping Station and receive the main tunnel from Kirtling Street; and the long connection tunnel from Greenwich Pumping Station. Additionally, no new information or issues have been identified that would fundamentally change our proposals for this site. Therefore we will continue to develop the proposals for this site that we published at phase two consultation. The feedback we received included detailed comments on the construction and operational effects of the proposed development and the measures we propose to reduce and manage those effects. Detailed comments were also made on our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site. Having regard to the feedback received, we will continue to refine our detailed proposals for this site to improve the design and reduce the impacts on the local community and environment. We are currently considering the following changes to the layout and/or appearance of our proposals: reviewing the raised ventilation structure previously proposed to abut the river wall to minimise the effect on the future new public realm additional noise attenuation measures during construction providing a pedestrian crossing near Riverside Primary School opportunities to make further use of the river to transport shaft, other excavated materials and sand and aggregates for secondary tunnel linings to reduce the number of lorries on local roads appropriate arrangements for cross borough monitoring of the construction phases where relevant in the CoCP.

20.8.3

20.8.4 20.8.5

We are also in discussions with the LBS and St James regarding the need for minor amendments to the planning permission for redevelopment of this site for housing and other uses. In our SOCC we recognised that we may need to amend our scheme following phase two consultation and that if changes came forward we would consider whether targeted consultation is appropriate. We do not consider that the degree of change in relation to this site or the effect on the local community would affect the nature of the comments received during phase two consultation in such a way as to require further consultation. On that basis, a round of targeted consultation on our proposals for this site is not considered necessary. We will progress with preparation of our application for a development consent order and will incorporate the changes referred to in paragraphs 20.8.3 and 20.8.4 if further work demonstrates that this is appropriate. We intend to publicise our proposed application in accordance with Section 48 of the Planning Act 2008 later in 2012. Full details of our proposed scheme will be set out in our DCO application and the accompanying documents

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

20-105

Related Interests