You are on page 1of 59

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

Supplementary report on phase two consultation


Chapter 30 Consultation process

Thames Tunnel Supplementary report on phase two consultation


List of contents Page number 30 Feedback on the consultation process ..................................................... 30-1 30.1 30.2 30.3 30.4 30.5 30.6 Introduction ......................................................................................... 30-1 Continuity with phase one consultation and interim engagement ....... 30-1 Attendance at exhibitions during the phase two consultation ............. 30-8 Information provided during the phase two consultation ................... 30-17 Other comments on the consultation process ................................... 30-36 Our view of the way forward ............................................................. 30-56

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

List of tables Page number Table 30.2.1 Number of respondents who had previously taken part in consultation activities for this project (Q13) .................................... 30-1 Table 30.2.2 Number of respondents who had participated in previous consultation activities (Q14) ........................................................... 30-2 Table 30.2.3 Number of respondents who had participated in previous other consultation activities (Q14) ........................................................... 30-2 Table 30.3.1 Attendance at exhibitions during the phase two consultation period (Q15) ................................................................................... 30-8 Table 30.3.2 Exhibitions attended during the phase two consultation period (Q15) ............................................................................................ 30-8 Table 30.3.3 Other meetings and activities undertaken during the phase two consultation period (Q15) ............................................................. 30-11 Table 30.4.1 Documents which respondents read to help them respond to the feedback form (QB) ................................................................ 30-17 Table 30.4.2 Do you think you have been provided with enough information about the project and consultation material to enable you to comment? (Q16) .......................................................................... 30-17 Table 30.4.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments relating to consultation information................................................................ 30-18 Table 30.4.4 Objections, issues and concerns relating to consultation information................................................................................. 30-21

Table 30.5.1 Number of respondents who had other comments on the Thames Tunnel project consultation process (Q17) ..................... 30-36 Table 30.5.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments relating to the consultation process ..................................................................... 30-36 Table 30.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns relating to the consultation process ...................................................................................... 30-38

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30 Feedback on the consultation process

30
30.1
30.1.1

Feedback on the consultation process


Introduction
This chapter sets out the feedback comments received during the phase two consultation in relation to the consultation process, including: section 30.2 - continuity with phase one consultation and interim engagement; questions 13 and 14 of the phase two consultation feedback form (provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation) asked respondents whether they had previously taken part in consultation activities for the Thames Tunnel project section 30.3 - attendance at exhibitions during the phase two consultation; question 15 of the phase two consultation feedback form asked respondents whether they had attended an exhibition during the phase two consultation period section 30.4 - information provided during the phase two consultation; question 16 of the phase two consultation feedback form asked respondents whether they thought that they had been provided with enough information about the project and consultation material to enable them to comment section 30.5 other comments on the consultation process; question 17 of the phase two consultation feedback form asked respondents whether they had any other comments on the Thames Tunnel project consultation process.

30.1.2 30.1.3 30.1.4

Where respondents made comments regarding the preferred sites in connection to the consultation process, these have been reported under the relevant site specific chapter. Where more than 250 respondents have made a feedback comment the details of the respondent IDs are set out in annex F 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.

30.2
30.2.1

Continuity with phase one consultation and interim engagement


Of the 6,019 respondents who submitted feedback comments during the phase two consultation, 960 indicated that they had previously taken part in consultation activities for the Thames Tunnel project. Table 30.2.1 Number of respondents who had previously taken part in consultation activities for this project (Q13) Respondent type Number of respondents Yes Statutory consultees Local authorities 0 2 - London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF) - London Borough of Tower Hamlets (LBTH) Landowners Community consultees Petitions 50 908 0 26 2,299 0 57 2,632 9 No 0 0 No response 21 15

30.2.2

Of those who had previously taken part in consultation activities, the majority reported that they had attended an exhibition or participated in other consultation activities (Table 30.2.2). A summary of other consultation activities that respondents stated that they had previously taken part in is provided in Table 30.2.3.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-1

30 Feedback on the consultation process Table 30.2.2 Number of respondents who had participated in previous consultation activities (Q14) Consultation activity Number of respondents Statutory consultees Attended an exhibition and spoke to a member of the Thames Tunnel project team Attended an exhibition, but didnt speak to a member of the Thames Tunnel project team Filled in a feedback form Attended a drop in session/other meeting attended by Thames Water Other consultation activity (see table 30.2.3) 0 Local authorities 2 - LBHF - LBTH 0 Landowners 41 Community consultees 267 Petitions 0

22

0 0 0

0 0 1
- LBHF

6 0 19

95 29 443

0 0 0

Table 30.2.3 Number of respondents who had participated in previous other consultation activities (Q14) Ref 30.2.3 Other consultation activity Attended public, local resident or community action group meeting(s), non-specified. Respondent ID 7285LO, 8562LO, 8082LO, 9105LO, 9110LO, 9131LO, 9470LO, 9465LO, LR13496LO, 13397LO, 7102, 7104, 7177, 7250, 7512, 7526, 7412, 7610, 7809, 7839, 7869, 7932, 7990, 8210, 8213, 8334, 8566, 8626, 8629, 8648, 8745, 8747, 8751, 8755, 8854, 8868, 9252, 9269, 9346, 11010, 11024, 11037, 11038, 11040, 11043, 11045, 11046, 11052, 11056, 11106, 11110, 11182, 11189, 11218, 11265, 11266, 11268, 11269, 11277, 11278, 11341, 11371, 11404, 11437, 11444, 11526, 11538, 11543, 11558, 11596, 11607, 11617, 11622, 11628, 11645, 11652, 11660, 11692, 11732, 11747, 11848, 11857, 11879, 11881, 11884, 11909, 11922, 11948, 11955, 11982, 11992, 12010, 12018, 12056, 12085, 12116, 12155, 12197, 12198, 12373, 12376, 12392, 12398, 12399, 12399, 12408, 12440, 11049, 12482, 12487, 12502, 12529, 12564, 12571, 12598, 12638, 12685, 12691, 12719, 12720, 12736, 12737, 12741, 12744, 12768, 12776, 12777, 12787, 12797, 12866, 12872, 12890, 12942, 12960, 12979, 13010, 13058, 13076, 13090, 13136, 13137, 13138, 13153, 13154, 13168, 13169, 13171, 13180, 13234, 13236, 13238, LR13442, 13363 8082LO, 7015, 7140, 7195, 7403, 7522, 7869, 7891, 7902, 8043, 8242, 8290, 8407, 8644, 9377, 9137, 11034, 11037, 11056, 11275, 11359, 11362, 11370, 11426, 11427, 11585, 11612, 11662, 11698, 11747, 11790, 11807, 11814, 11850, 11873, 11879, 11881, 11906, 11969, 11980, 11988, 12019, 12057, 12061, 12063, 12066, 12067, 12069, 12075, 12098, 12100, 12179, 12203, 12241, 12262, 12377, 12389, 12399, 12418, 12456, 12638, 12687, 12698, 12699, 12755, 12757, 12774, 12787, 12791, 12797, 12813, 12814, 12832, 12834, 12854, 12856, 12857, 12995, 13016, 13028, 13058, 13059, 13119, 13165, 13181, 13211, 13230, 13240 7331LO, 13397LO, 7015, 7121, 7147, 7196, 7186, 7197, 7220, 7384, 7403, 7408, 7438, 7462, 7476, 7491, 7514, 7540, 7631, 7700, 7704,7734, 7780, 7809, 7817, 8109, 8210, 8736, 7512, 7663, LR13442 13397LO, 7015, 7932, 7990, 8047, 11404, 11568, 11587, 11660, 11884, 12279, 12376, 12404, 12482, No. 153

30.2.4

Signed a petition/online petition.

88

30.2.5 30.2.6

Sent comments to Thames Water via website/online/consultation form/questionnaire. Sent comments/wrote to local council/MP/Prime

31 26

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-2

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref 30.2.7 Other consultation activity Minister/lobbied MP. Local protest/campaign group activities, including: - demonstration along riverfront - notice in window - flyers in Fulham - online protest. Read information from Thames Water/read information online. Attended local resident/ community action group meeting(s) - Fulham RATS. Attended local resident/ community action group meeting(s) with Thames Water representatives present, non-specified. Surveys eg RATS surveys. Attended local resident/ community action group meeting(s) with Thames Water representatives and MP/council/councillors present. Sent comments via a letter to Thames Water. Sent comments via email. Sent comments via a letter. Sent comments/wrote to Chairman of Thames Water. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) with MP/council/councillors present, and/or MP working group (eg, Justine Greening). General, other eg participating in websites, various, responded to a letter. Attended local resident/ community action group meeting(s) - Stop the Shaft. Respondent ID 12679, 12703, 12735, 12763, 12820, 12837, 12902, 12947, 13014,13016, 13079, 13093 7656LO, 7664LO, 8816, 11052, 11584, 11501, 11059, 11786, 11906, 11988, 12701, 12735, 12769, 13120, 13157, LR13441 No. 16

30.2.8 30.2.9 30.2.10

7878, 8096, 8334, 8642, 8779, 11124, 11143, 11421, 11543, 11814, 11886, 12053, 12863, 7852, 9372 7133, 7702, 8111, 11540, 12010, 12032, 12085, 12378, 12730, 12770, 12837, 13049, 13168 9105LO, 9109LO, 7181, 7527, 8281, 8288, 8643, 8871, 8894, LR9121, LR9273, 11124, 12730, 9348

15 13 14

30.2.11 30.2.12

13397LO, 7358, 7522, 7669, 11403, 11807, 12211, 12348, 12424, 12647, 12731, 12732, 12979, 13237, 7692 9093LO, 7735, 8206, 8501, 8793, 8923, 11285, 12834, 9348, 8805

15 10

30.2.13 30.2.14 30.2.15 30.2.16 30.2.17

7601, 7610, 8047, 11404, 11708, 12279, 12947, 13093, 13118, 8923 7260LO, 13397LO, 7293, 7825, 11056, 12090, 12756, 13237, 13238, 9383 13397LO, 7691, 7789, 7809, 8008, 8288, 12837, 12674, 13001, 13237, 13363 7933, 8648 9109LO, 7915, 8525, 8637, 8638, 8662, LR9277, 11804, 11951

10 10 11 2 9

30.2.18 30.2.19 30.2.20 30.2.21 30.2.22 30.2.23 30.2.24

12073, 12157, 12169, 12197, 12315, 11073, 12698, 13014, 13042 8637, 8638, 8766, 8816, 8861, 8895, 9361

9 7 7 7 5 5 4

Campaigned with local resident/ community action group 7015, 7601, 8621, 11251, 11884, 12529, 12766 - Fulham RATS. Sent comments/written to the Mayor of London. Hammersmith and Fulham Council consultation. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) - Save Kings Stairs Gardens. Attended a local council meeting with Thames Water representatives present - Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council. 13397LO, 7015, 8047, 8290, 11404, 13079, 9137 12072, 11789, 12179, 12753, 12976 7111, 7451, 8306, 8791, 8194 7427, 7428, 7485, 7483

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-3

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref 30.2.25 30.2.26 30.2.27 Other consultation activity Read information in newspaper/press coverage/ local community newsletter. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) Hurlingham and Chelsea School. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) with Thames Water representatives present Chelsea & Hurlingham School. Received information or letter/email from MP. Attended local resident/ community action group meeting(s) - Barn Elms. Attended local resident/ community action group meeting(s) Fulham. Attended local resident/ community action group meeting(s) - St Matthew's Church. Attended local resident/ community action group meeting(s) - Peterborough Road. Read information from protest group(s). Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) Deptford. Attended local council meeting. Sent comments via a community forum (eg residents committee - Free Trade Wharf) Consulted/discussed with neighbours. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) with Thames Water representatives present Save Your Riverside. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) - School in Wapping, Shadwell Basin. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) with Thames Water representatives present Fulham RATS. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) - Hurlington school. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) - David Street. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) - Friends of South Park. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) with Thames Water representatives present Respondent ID 11143, 11543, 11638, 8923 8103, 11012, 12747, 12769 7330, 8413, 8656, 12053 No. 4 4 4

30.2.28 30.2.29 30.2.30 30.2.31 30.2.32 30.2.33 30.2.34 30.2.35 30.2.36 30.2.37 30.2.38

8614, 12658, 7663 9109LO, 11228, 12994 7235, 7513, 12724 8103, 12053 7567, 8011 7876, 7865 8485, 8897 12681, 8405 7339, 8844 11804, 12392 8306, 8791

3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

30.2.39 30.2.40

7404, 8282 7343, 11889

2 2

30.2.41 30.2.42 30.2.43 30.2.44

11540, 11844 8566, 8566 8103, 11822 8533LO, 8949LO

2 2 2 2

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-4

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref 30.2.45 30.2.46 30.2.47 30.2.48 30.2.49 30.2.50 30.2.51 30.2.52 30.2.53 30.2.54 30.2.55 30.2.56 30.2.57 30.2.58 30.2.59 30.2.60 30.2.61 30.2.62 30.2.63 Other consultation activity Free Trade Wharf. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) - Putney Church. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) - Sands End Meeting. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) - P. Green Social Club meeting. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) - Church, Wapping. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) - St Mary's Church. Lunch with American Engineers after volunteering for Thames21. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) - School on Peterborough Road. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) - Save King Edward Memorial Park. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) Hurlingham Yacht Club. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) - Meeting organised by MAGASTRA. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) - Putney Society. Campaigned with local resident/community action group(s) - Friends of Cremorne Gardens. Campaigned with local resident/community action group(s) - Regent on the River Association activities. Campaigned with local resident/community action group(s) - Say No the sewer Campaign. Local protest group activities - save KEMP March from Tower Hill to Mayor's office. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) - Fulham Society. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) - Chelsea Society. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) - Wandsworth Historical Society. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) - Lowther School. Respondent ID 9346 7518 8103 8282 7785 7693 11727 8090 9253 8829 8861 7458 12173 11038 9104LO 13099 13066 7785 7024 No. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-5

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref 30.2.64 30.2.65 Other consultation activity Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) - Holy Trinity Church Barnes. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) - Hurlingham Square residents' action committee. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) - Carnwath Road neighbours. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) - Thomas's Day School. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) Worx. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) Wandsworth. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) - Residents Association Discussion (HRRA). Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) with Thames Water representatives present St Matthew's Church. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) with Thames Water representatives present Wandsworth Bridge Road. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) with Thames Water representatives present Church in Bermondsey. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) with Thames Water representatives present Putney Bridge Canoe Club AGM. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) with Thames Water representatives present Deptford church. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) with Thames Water representatives present Paddington Offices. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) with Thames Water representatives present TEP annual forum. Attended local resident/community action group meeting(s) with Thames Water representatives present Save King Edward Memorial Park. Attended Blue Ribbon section of the Thames Festival last September. Respondent ID 7288 12378 No. 1 1

30.2.66 30.2.67 30.2.68 30.2.69 30.2.70 30.2.71

11986 12012 12056 12211 12233 714

1 1 1 1 1 1

30.2.72

7235

30.2.73

721

30.2.74

7251

30.2.75

8197

30.2.76

8289

30.2.77

8897

30.2.78

9097

30.2.79

LR9275

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-6

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref 30.2.80 30.2.81 30.2.82 30.2.83 30.2.84 30.2.85 30.2.86 30.2.87 30.2.88 30.2.89 30.2.90 Other consultation activity Discussed proposals with Thames Water over the phone. Corresponded with Thames Water. Read information from Wandsworth Council. Sent comments to a local newspaper. Filled in a protest letter. Via Charles Brocket (Lord). Responded to Greg Hands Campaign to prevent the super sewer at Carnwath Road. Discussions with local MP/councillor. Attended a private meeting with chief engineer. Wrote to the Department for Environment, Fisheries and Rural Affairs (Defra). Residual other consultation activities, including: - part of submission for Hammersmith and Fulham Council - local Civic Society - Ann Rosenburgs video - local conservation branch - correspondence
- manned inflatables - outreach.

Respondent ID 7919 13019 7878 11578 7902, 8843LO 11946 12392 9093LO 7704 LR9292LO, 7236, 7502, 7833, 8820, 8882, 8901, 11008,11080, 11081, 11385, 11433, 11534, 11551, 11638, 11653, 11728, 11947, 12050, 12052, 12372, 12709, 12919, LR9471

No. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 24

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-7

30 Feedback on the consultation process

30.3
30.3.1

Attendance at exhibitions during the phase two consultation


1,074 respondents who submitted feedback comments during the phase two consultation indicated that they had attended an exhibition during the phase two consultation period. 619 respondents stated that they had not attended an exhibition at the time of submitting their feedback comments. Table 30.3.1 Attendance at exhibitions during the phase two consultation period (Q15) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Number of respondents Yes 0 2 - LBHF - LBTH 52 1,020 0 No 0 0 No response 21 15

Landowners Community consultees Petitions 30.3.2

22 597 0

59 4,222 9

A summary of attendance at exhibitions that we organised during phase two consultation is provided in Table 30.3.2. The first column identifies the name of the exhibition by its location. Additionally, details of other meetings and activities that respondents reported they had been involved in during phase two consultation are set out at Table 30.3.3. Table 30.3.2 Exhibitions attended during the phase two consultation period (Q15) Exhibition name Number of respondents Community consultees Hurlingham and Chelsea School, Peterborough Road 7015, 7102, 7121, 7129, 7134, 7180, 7181, 7471, 7692, 7330, 7371, 7377, 7384, 7413, 7434, 7438, 7486, 7485, 7512, 7514,7544, 7549, 7601, 7610, 7663, 7752, 7569, 7704, 7764, 7765, 7766, 7698, 7847, 7932, 7934, 7958, 7894, 7922, 7934, 7977, 8007, 8022, 8027, 8030, 8103, 8109, 8111, 8121, 8318, 8404, 8494, 8621, 8629, 8656, 8742, 8743, 8746, 8755, 8791, 8874, 8891, 8898, LR9118, 9377, 9474, 11015, 11164, 11208, 11209, 11213, 11230, 11231, 11235, 11253, 11263, 11278, 11291, 11292, 11305, 11332, 11354, 11386, 11443,11471, 11475, 13119, 11502, 11520, 11538, 11540, 11546, 11552, 11580, 11606, 11607, 11641, 11651, 11657, 11727, 11762, 11684,11686, 11692, 13154, 11732,11747, 11747, 11750, 11838, 11874, 11879, 11886, 11909, 11978, 12131, 12145, 12444, 12535, 12807,12970, 12005, 12024, 12049, 12057, 12073, 12099, 12112, 13221, 12139, 12155, 12197, 12199, 12323, 12329, 12371, 12373, 12381, 12419, 12431, 12440, 12443, 12646, 12661, 12663, 12681, 12771, 12797, 12822, 12828, 12833, 12862, 12883, 12940, 12942, No. 182 Landowners No. Statutory consultees No. Local authorities No. Petitions No.

7656LO, 7664LO, 9 8000LO, 8082LO, 9131LO, 9392LO, 9131LO, 13397LO, 13397LO

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-8

30 Feedback on the consultation process Exhibition name Number of respondents Community consultees 12972, 12975, 12976, 12978, 12979, 13001, 13002, 13019, 13021, 13013, 13037, 13040, 13042, 13049, 13052, 13065, 13085, 13105, 13118, 13124, 13153, 13159, 13185, 13229, 13017, 13169, LR13429, LR13442 Beormund Centre, Abbey Street, Southwark 7262, 7366, 7490, 7578, 7579, 7580, 7581, 7582, 7583, 7584, 7585, 7586, 7587, 7588, 7589 ,7590, 7591, 7592, 7621, 7624, 7690, 7695, 7882, 8049, 8306, 8614, 8647, 8649, 8680, 8756, 8776, 8813, 8837, 8849, 8890, 8907, LR9117, 9149, LR9280, 9349, 9475, 9496, 9497 7471, 7567, 7601, 7634, 7693, 7958, 7618, 7693, 8007, 8117, 8537, 8838, 11439, 11440,11501, 11686, 11846, 11878, 12020, 12024, 12059, 12096, 12139, 12440, 12530, 12535, 12681, 12685, 12688, 13013, 13089, 13106, 13231, LR13441, 7512, 7513 7735, 8033, 8041, 8093, 8225, 8226, 8227, 8228, 8229, 8231, 8234, 8306, 8320, 8890, 8624, 8635, 8649, 8686, 8750, 8849, 8853, 9168, 9269, LR9112, LR9115, LR9122, 9149, 9168, 9475, 9442, 11660, 8298, 8299, 8557, 8558, 8566, 8567, 8799, LR9341, LR13473 43 7996LO, 8303LO, LR9274LO, 9083LO, 9084LO, 9085LO, 9086LO, 9093LO, 9105LO, 9107LO, 8795LO, 8801LO, 8571LO 13 No. Landowners No. Statutory consultees No. Local authorities No. Petitions No.

Parsons Green Sports Club, Broomhouse Lane

36

7656LO, 7664LO, 6 8000LO, 9110LO, 13397LO,13397LO

City Hall, The Queens Walk

40

8305LO, 8277LO, 8887LO, 8600LO, 8632LO, 9254LO, LR9271LO, LR9272LO, 9092LO, 9105LO, 9107LO, 8571LO, 8801LO, LR13498

14

London Rowing Club, Embankment Putney

7271, 7294, 7302, 7304, 7305, 7448, 7449, 7814, 7815, 7923, 7884, 7930, 7938, 8224, 8281, 8409, 8492, 8535, 8640, 8687, 8760, 8825, 8832, 8833, 8841,9138, 8977, 9181, LR9121, 9205, LR9276, 7325, 7326, 8559, 9361 7288, 7441, 7445, 7454, 7626, 7627, 7940, 7896, 7860, 7896, 7921, 7995, 8083, 8087, 8230, 8406, 8575, 8641, 8644, 8645, 8651, 8811, 9098, 9098, LR9277, 8190 7247, 7249, 7286, 7292, 7297, 7298, 7679, 7307, 7308, 7309, 7347, 7406, 7247, 8232, 8337, 8501, 8510, 8682, 8835, 8897, 9079, 9409, 7743, 8300 7388, 7438, 7499, 7527, 7639, 7701, 7705, 8047, 8103, 8621, 8648, 11312, 11509, 11543, 11616, 11878, 12082 7321, 7444, 7622, 7797, 7844, 7935, 8006, 8084,

35

WWT Wetland Centre, Queen Elizabeth Walk

26

9109LO

Creekside Centre, 14 Creekside, Deptford The Worx, Parsons Green

24

17

7656LO, 7664LO, 8000LO 9104LO, 9126LO

Glamis Estate Tenant's Hall,

12

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-9

30 Feedback on the consultation process Exhibition name Number of respondents Community consultees 414 Cable Street 8530, 8896, 9097, 9101, 13 7 6 7 6 9465LO, LR13496LO 2 9465LO, LR13496LO 2 No. Landowners No. Statutory consultees No. Local authorities No. Petitions No.

Chelsea Academy, Lots Road 7295, 7315, 7557, 7628, 8654, LR9119, 7684, 7457, LR9114, 11057, 9252, 12329, 7801 Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Battersea Park Road Royal Hospital Chelsea, Royal Hospital Road London Transport Museum, Covent Garden Piazza York Gardens Library and Community Centre, 34 Lavender Road Acton Scout Hut, Rugby Road Linden House, Upper Mall, Vauxhall City Farm, 165 Tyers Street John Scurr Community Centre, Bekesbourne Street Stratford Town Hall, 29 Broadway Attended exhibition/meeting, venue not specified LR7290, 7291, 7442, 7443, 7921, LR9270, 13157 7447, 7453, 7456, 7458, 8089, 925 7420, 7631, 7882, 7937, 8086, 9096, 9145 7105, 7782, 7785, 7936, 8489, LR9154

8004, 8235, 8233, 9098, 9098 7685, 7623, 7707, 9091, LR13394 7484, 7919 LR9278 736 7104, 7181, 7250, 7412, 7502, 7512, 7526, 7671, 7692, 7761, 7809, 7817, 7869, 7948, 7969, 7971, 7892, 8456, 8545, 8546, 8555, 8637, 8643, 8770, 8010, 8047, 8091, 8094, 8198, 8209, 8210, 8216, 8300,8318, 8575, 8659, 8836, 8923, 8924, 8950, 8951, 9024, 9046, LR9112, 8948, LR9373, 9377, 11015, 11024, 11025, 11046, 11049, 11052, 11057, 11087, 11133, 11143, 11208,11209, 11210, 11213, 11216, 11217, 11218, 11223, 11257, 11266, 11185, 11210, 11213, 11263, 11268, 11278, 11284, 11318, 11371, 11404, 11409, 11410, 11141, 11445, 11473, 11502, 11509, 11517, 11558, 11617, 11617, 11628, 11638, 11645, 11649, 11652, 11673, 11677, 11692, 11708, 11712, 11723, 11735, 11753, 11763, 11790, 11817, 11828, 11829, 11848, 11857, 11885, 11903, 11910, 11936, 11939, 11956, 11976, 11977, 12010, 12015, 12023, 12056, 12058, 12082, 12093, 12116, 12157, 12161, 12163, 12175, 12183, 12191, 12211,

5 5 2 1 1 182

8630LO

7285LO, 8563LO, 8949LO, 9374LO

LBHF

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-10

30 Feedback on the consultation process Exhibition name Number of respondents Community consultees 12229, 12226, 12239, 12255, 12286, 12442, 12476, 12508, 12564, 12680, 12692, 12718, 12719, 12722, 12724, 12744, 12777, 12791, 12801, 12821, 12834, 12839, 12930, 12947, 12953, 12957, 12863, 13010, 13011, 13020, 13059, 13068, 13087, 13093, 13131, 13133, 13136, 13156, 13164, 13189, 13205, 13206, 13215, 13224, 13227, 13228,13236, 13363, LR13422, LR13428, LR13446 Table 30.3.3 Other meetings and activities undertaken during the phase two consultation period (Q15) Meeting or activity Number of respondents Community consultees Public meetings/exhibition with Thames Water and/or council present Hurlington School 8332, 8335, 8653, 8657, 8738, 8741, 8776, 8777, 8829, 8848, 8924, 9269, 11716, 11748, 11749, 11953, 12032, 12049, 12086, 12776, 12918, 13048, 13062, 13066 11900, 11902, 11948, 11967, 11975, 12269, 12378, 12530, 12698, 12720, 12747, 12766, 12819, 12931, 12998, 13004, 13058, 13094, 13140, 13157, 13171, 13195 LR9341 11797, 11925 8413 11698 7476, 12159 7786, 7870, 7851, 8112, 8880, 11049,11306, 12090, 12611, 12960, 13064, 13099, 13148 11560 13180 13174 1152 13097 751 No. 24 Landowners No. Statutory consultees No. Local authorities No. Petitions No. No. Landowners No. Statutory consultees No. Local authorities No. Petitions No.

22

Chambers Wharf Hammersmith & Fulham Town Hall Hurlingham and Fulham Schools Chelsea and Hammersmith School Fulham School Fulham, venue not specified Imperial Wharf Imperial Road Piper Building Peter Bolaugh School Southside Exhibition Carnwath Road School

1 2 1 1 2 13 1 1 1 1 1 1

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-11

30 Feedback on the consultation process Meeting or activity Number of respondents Community consultees Carnwath Road Putney, venue not specified Putney Exchange Wandsen Bridge Kirtling Street Sands End Wandsworth, venue not specified Wandsworth Town Hall Wandsworth Bridge Road Wandsworth Mall St James, Wandsworth Bridge Road St Mary's Church Waitrose, Putney Southwark, venue not specified Central Hall 8404, 8865, 8121 7177, 7784, 7962, 8291, 8396, 8726, 9253, 9102, 12367, 12369 7917, 7963, 7930 11641 8404 7147, 7518, 11144 8018, 13237 12272 7252, 11571, 11909, LR13442 11218 7438, LR9118 7923, 7963, 8531, 8687, 11164, 12269 7941 8751 7280 No. 3 10 3 1 1 3 2 1 4 1 2 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 9 1 1 1 2 1 1 Landowners 9110LO No. 1 Statutory consultees No. Local authorities No. Petitions No.

Salvation Army Hall, Maryann 728 Gardens, Deptford Riverside School, Southwark Peter Donovon Road School Canada Water Barn Elms/Barnes, venue not specified Barn Elms Wild Fowl Centre Dormay Street Wapping/Shadwell area Wapping, venue not specified St Peter's school, Wapping Earl Pumping Station LR9111 LR13444 8890, 9149, 9475 7287, 7293, 7446, 7629, 7921, 8396, 8404, 11164, 11480 9467 8404 7672 7828, 8739 8282 9149

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-12

30 Feedback on the consultation process Meeting or activity Number of respondents Community consultees Shadwell, venue not specified LR7333, 7334, 8758 Shad Thames School in Wapping, Shadwell Basin 8813 7404 No. 3 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 11 1 0 7530 8790 7785 7792 7928 11306 7919 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8778LO, 9468LO 2 8778LO 9470LO 8000LO, 8000LO 1 1 2 Landowners No. Statutory consultees No. Local authorities No. Petitions No.

Heckford Exhibition, Shadwell 7844, 9099 Basin Outdoor Activity Centre St Paul's, Shadwell Hammersmith, venue not specified Hammersmith Pumping Station Hammersmith and Fulham Super Sewer Summit Hammersmith Sailing Club All Saints Fulham Church Bekesbourne Street Town Hall, location not specified King Edward Memorial Park Heckford Road Handy Transport Museum Surrey Docks Watersports Centre, Rope Street Vauxhall, venue not specified Heathmans Row Greenwich, venue not specified Chiswick Mall King George's Park Tidemill London Policy Conference Twickenham Battersea Park 7918, 8548 8831, 11504, 12907 8404, 8831 7639, 7783 12544 11618, 11992 7689 8650 7312, 7319, 7911 7789 7696 7451, 7247, 7924, 7926, 7927, 7925, 8877, 8953, 7800, 8953, 9357 8868

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-13

30 Feedback on the consultation process Meeting or activity Number of respondents Community consultees Acton Storm Tanks Thomas School Riverside Mansions John Orwell Sports Centre/ Orwell Leisure Centre Wapping Bermondsey Deptford, venue not specified School Children's school Portcullis House Paddington, venue not specified St Nicholas Church Carnwath Road Bermondsey Community Centre Church on the Highway, Wapping (with local MP) Meeting at local church Southbank Broomhouse Lane Sports Club/ Broomhouse Road 8404 11331, 12890, 12963, 13033 8919 8316, 8628, 8745, 8812, LR9278 No. 1 4 1 5 Landowners No. Statutory consultees No. Local authorities No. Petitions No.

8718, 8721 8405, 8497, 8720, LR9471 7495 7542 8222, 8462 8289, 8448 13049 9023, LR9279 8282, LR9278 11010, 11218, 11384 11575 11725, 11982, 11986 , 12020

2 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 4 1 2 3 2 1 5 2

8744LO, 9108LO

LR9271LO, LR9272LO

Attended a local question and 7243 answer session Attended a drop-in session Attended local meetings/ public meetings with MP Meetings at workplace Attended presentations Attended council organised meeting Campaign/Rally Hammersmith and Fulham 7811, 9046 8546, 9046, 12383 11216, 11217 7869 12082, 12776, 12968, 13108, 13231 12664, 12965

9126LO

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-14

30 Feedback on the consultation process Meeting or activity Number of respondents Community consultees Attended local resident/ community action group meeting(s) - Hammersmith Town and Church near Wendell Park Attended local resident/ community action group meeting(s) - Putney Wharf resident association Attended local resident/ community action group meeting(s) - Fulham Society Attended local resident/ community action group meeting(s) - St Matthew's Church, Wandsworth Bridge Rd Attended local resident/ community action group meeting(s) - Fulham RATS 7238 No. 1 Landowners No. Statutory consultees No. Local authorities No. Petitions No.

11617

LR9118, 12730, 12741, 13161

7180, 7267, 7610, 8404, LR9118, 11641, 11607, 11698, 11732,11738,11746, 11747, 11747, 11772, 11884, 11889, 11967, 11998, 12003, 12057, 12112, 12378, 12831, 12833, 12928, 12941, 12942, 13052, 13130 7121, 7702, 8404, 11185, 12023, 12032, 12918, 13188

29

Attended local resident/ 13188 community action group meeting(s) - Peterborough Rd residents Attended local resident/ community action group meeting(s) - PRARA Attended local resident/ community action group meeting(s) - Fulham Local Residents Attended local resident/ community action group meeting(s) with Thames Water representatives present - Jacobs Island Residents Association 11185, 11857, 13231, LR13441

8210

7496

Attended local resident/ 7496 community action group meeting(s) - Bermondsey and Rotherhithe Environment

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-15

30 Feedback on the consultation process Meeting or activity Number of respondents Community consultees Group Attended local resident/ community action group meeting(s) SaveYourRiverside.org Attended local resident/ community action group meeting(s) - Don't Dump on Deptford's Heart Attended local resident/ community action group meeting(s) - Putney Foreshore Group Attended local resident/ community action group meeting(s) - Putney Society Attended local resident/ community action group meeting(s) - Stop the Shaft Attended local resident/ community action group meeting(s) - Active Wandsworth Attended local resident/ community action group meeting(s) Kings Stairs Gardens Attended a local resident/ community action group meeting(s), venue not specified Would prefer not to say Didnt attend exhibition, but was briefed by associates Tried to attend the Chelsea Academy exhibition, but couldnt because of traffic 7043 7786 1 1 7496 1 No. Landowners No. Statutory consultees No. Local authorities No. Petitions No.

8232

8289

8546, 8777

8777

8546

8907, 8626

7126, 7390, 7575

8001LO

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-16

30 Feedback on the consultation process

30.4
30.4.1

Information provided during phase two consultation


During phase two consultation, respondents were asked which documents they had read to help them respond to the feedback form (see question B of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). Of those that responded, the most frequently read material was the site information papers. A significant number of community consultees had read other material, which in most cases had been produced by local community groups. Table 30.4.1 provides a breakdown of the documents respondents had read. Table 30.4.1 Documents which respondents read to help them respond to the feedback form (QB) Respondent type Number of respondents Site information papers Project information papers Technical information/ reports 0 1 - LBHF 40 292 0 Other None

Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions 30.4.2

0 1 - LBHF 65 695 0

0 1 - LBHF 46 494 0

0 1 - LBHF 53 2,883 0

0 0 1 87 0

Respondents were also asked whether we had provided enough information about the project and consultation material to enable them to comment (see question 16 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). Table 40.4.2 sets out details of the different groups who responded to confirm whether enough information had been provided; 99 feedback comments were received after the close of phase two consultation . Tables 30.4.3 and 30.4.4 detail the feedback comments received in relation to the information provided. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments confirmed whether enough information had been provided. Table 30.4.2 Do you think you have been provided with enough information about the project and consultation material to enable you to comment? (Q16) Respondent type Statutory consultees Local authorities Number of respondents Yes 0 0 No 0 2 - LBHF - LBTH 38 331 0 371 No response 21 15

Landowners Community consultees Petitions Total

35 661 0 696

60 4,847 9 4,952

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-17

30 Feedback on the consultation process Supportive and neutral feedback comments Table 30.4.3Supportive and neutral feedback comments relating to consultation information Ref 30.4.3 30.4.4 30.4.5 30.4.6 Supportive and neutral comments The consultation website was very informative, particularly the videos. The online document library was a useful resource. Information was readily accessible and easy to find on the consultation website. The quality of consultation material provided at phase two was better than phase one consultation. Consultation information and material was accessible and easy to read and understand. Consultation documents were delivered directly to local residents' homes. Respondent ID 11375, 12368, 7147, 7451, 7536, 8831, 8901, 9377, LR9121 7155, 7201, 7351, 7679, 7728, 7839, 8124, 8869 7016, 7155, 7223, 7536 LR9154 No. 9 8 4 1 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.

30.4.7

11676, 7521

30.4.8

8949LO, 10062, 10086, 10139, 10154, 10155, 10156, 10157, 10159, 10168, 10169, 10187, 10194, 10195, 10196, 10197, 10243, 10244, 10265, 10289, 10297, 10298, 10300, 10307, 10312, 10313, 10316, 10318, 10325, 10328, 10333, 10353, 10356, 10357, 10358, 10376, 10377, 10380, 10432, 10433, 10437, 10438, 10448, 10453, 10456, 10457, 10460, 10463, 10467, 10468, 10474, 10478, 10489, 10492, 10504, 10526, 10536, 10595, 10632, 10642, 10664, 10666, 10672, 10673, 10698, 10701, 10705, 10707, 10714, 10715, 10719, 10729, 10731, 10732, 10735, 10736, 10743, 10744, 10746, 10747, 10753, 10754, 10756, 10757, 10759, 10761, 10765, 10767, 10771, 10772, 10778, 8924, 8950, 8952, 9046, 9500, 9501, 9502, 9507, 9509, 9510, 9512, 9519, 9523, 9524, 9525, 9528, 9542, 9557, 9564, 9574, 9588, 9593, 9603, 9607, 9621, 9622, 9667, 9672, 9682, 9683, 9684, 9690, 9693, 9698, 9699, 9701, 9851, 9852, 9865, 9891, 9918, 9928, 9937, 9946, 9947, 9966, 9989, 9998, LR10787, LR10789, LR10791, LR10794, LR10801, LR10802, LR10803, LR10804, LR10806, LR10810, LR10815, LR13463, LR13464 8949LO, 10062, 10086, 10139, 10141,

152

30.4.9

Leaflets about Thames Water drop-in days

160

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-18

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Supportive and neutral comments were delivered directly to local residents. Respondent ID 10152, 10155, 10156, 10157, 10159, 10169, 10187, 10195, 10196, 10197, 10243, 10244, 10265, 10300, 10307, 10312, 10313, 10316, 10318, 10327, 10328, 10333, 10334, 10353, 10357, 10358, 10361, 10380, 10425, 10432, 10433, 10436, 10437, 10446, 10448, 10453, 10454, 10455, 10456, 10457, 10460, 10465, 10467, 10468, 10474, 10478, 10489, 10492, 10504, 10526, 10536, 10537, 10544, 10632, 10642, 10662, 10663, 10666, 10668, 10698, 10701, 10705, 10707, 10714, 10715, 10719, 10720, 10729, 10731, 10735, 10742, 10743, 10744, 10746, 10747, 10750, 10753, 10754, 10756, 10757, 10758, 10759, 10761, 10766, 10770, 10771, 10773, 10775, 10778, 8501, 8644, 8924, 8948, 8951, 9046, 9500, 9501, 9502, 9507, 9510, 9515, 9517, 9523, 9524, 9525, 9542, 9557, 9564, 9574, 9578, 9588, 9593, 9596, 9621, 9622, 9641, 9653, 9658, 9667, 9672, 9690, 9693, 9698, 9699, 9701, 9850, 9851, 9852, 9865, 9918, 9928, 9937, 9946, 9947, 9966, 9989, 9998, LR10788, LR10789, LR10791, LR10794, LR10801, LR10802, LR10803, LR10804, LR10810, LR10813, LR10815, LR10816, LR10817, LR10818, LR10821, LR13457, LR13462, LR13464 7690, 8407, 8447, 9079, LR13394, LR9114, LR9121 10155, 10156, 10157, 10159, 10187, 10194, 10195, 10243, 10244, 10265, 10292, 10305, 10313, 10325, 10333, 10356, 10358, 10369, 10387, 10432, 10433, 10455, 10457, 10465, 10468, 10474, 10478, 10504, 10571, 10595, 10632, 10664, 10668, 10673, 10701, 10719, 10729, 10735, 10739, 10744, 10756, 10761, 10766, 10771, 9046, 9500, 9512, 9515, 9517, 9519, 9524, 9528, 9542, 9557, 9564, 9565, 9588, 9621, 9622, 9653, 9657, 9690, 9693, 9698, 9699, 9701, 9865, 9917, 9918, 9928, 9946, 9947, 9998, LR10787, LR10789, LR10794, LR10795, LR10802, LR10803, No. Our response

30.4.10 30.4.11

Consultation information and material was helpful and informative. Local residents were aware that Thames Water offered a language service as part of the consultation process.

7 91

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-19

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID LR10804, LR10806, LR10816, LR10817, LR10818, LR10820, LR10821, LR10823, LR10824, LR13457, LR13462, LR9373 See annex F of this report No. Our response

30.4.12

Respondents did not have to use the Thames Water language line to help them understand the proposals. Consultation information and material was comprehensive. The quality of consultation material was good/high. Sufficient information was provided to enable people to comment on the Thames Tunnel project.

887

30.4.13 30.4.14 30.4.15

13115, 7016, 7147, 7159, 7223, 7231, 7671, 7990, 8306, 8489 8644, 8894, 8901, 9445, LR13426 8806LO, 9094LO, 9140LO, 11238, 11797, 7137, 7228, 7342, 7529, 7756, 7841, 7937, 8281, 8289, 8313, 8334, 8402, 8530, 8745, 8854, 8876, 9079, 9097, 9099, LR9275 7610, 7747, 7990 13490LO, 7290, 7484, 7518, 7610, 7689, 7781, 7905, 8545, 8791, 8831, 8894, 9102, 9253, LR9114, LR9276 12096, 12097, 7231, 7290, 7291, 7484, 8644, 9253, LR9121, LR9276 8001LO, 8803LO, 8807LO, 9147LO, 11123, 11128, 11230, 11231, 11232, 11252, 11309, 11313, 11332, 11405, 11415, 11460, 11518, 11566, 11614, 11740, 11940, 11953, 12102, 12132, 12134, 12153, 12164, 12170, 12232, 12280, 12292, 12344, 12399, 12438, 12466, 12528, 12671, 12681, 12728, 12754, 12756, 12819, 12870, 13044, 13089, 13100, 13101, 13104, 13107, 13118, 13122, 13143, 13173, 13183, 13216, 13224, 13225, 7159, 7161, 7839, 7950, 8118, 8284, 8327, 8328, 8336, 8453, 8481, 8553, 8722, 8749, 8782, 8809, 8834, 8869, 9476 See annex F of this report

10 5 25

30.4.16 30.4.17

Site information papers were very informative/useful and well prepared. Thames Water staff members were wellinformed and knowledgeable. The exhibitions were useful and informative. Information was procured from another source including local MP, press and interest groups.

3 16

30.4.18 30.4.19

10 76

30.4.20

Local residents were provided with enough understandable information by Thames Water to enable them to respond to the consultation.

988

30.4.21

Other supportive comments received 7287, 7793, 8447 included: - support for the email updates provided by

We appreciate that respondents may wish to know more about our proposals. Further information will be made available once the Development Consent Order (DCO) application has been accepted by

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-20

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Supportive and neutral comments Thames Water which have helped residents to keep up-to-date with the projects progress and provided transparency in decision-making regarding Deptford Church Street - enough information was provided at phase two consultation to enable respondents to comment on the proposals; however, not enough data was provided for them to be comfortable with the project. Not qualified to comment on this technical matter. Respondent ID No. Our response the Planning Inspectorate for examination. We also propose to continue to engage with consultees up to and following submission of our DCO application. Refer to our Community consultation strategy (CCS) for further details.

30.4.22

7314

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 comments received from both technical and non-technical consultees.

Objections, issues and concerns Table 30.4.4 Objections, issues and concerns relating to consultation information Ref 30.4.23 Objections, issues and concerns More information, in particular for residents, is needed to enable people to comment on the project. Respondent ID (LR)LBTH, 7996LO, 9085LO, 9086LO, 9401LO, 9417LO, 9481LO, LR9272LO, 11275, 11446, 11536, 11540, 11561, 11571, 11674, 11784, 12101, 12275, 12474, 12743, 12782, 12795, 12818, 12991, 13180, 7126, 7131, 7161, 7186, 7215, 7286, 7338, 7566, 7622, 7767, 7789, 7792, 7794, 8020, 8089, 8210, 8242, 8553, 8635, 8828, 8849, 8904, LR13381, LR13500, No. 49 Our response Prior to phase two consultation commencing, we agreed our approach to this phase of consultation with the potentially directly affected local authorities. We consider that we undertook 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. We provided a range of materials, which varied in their technical detail to ensure that the material was appropriate for all those with an interest in the project. We are confident therefore that the information we provided is sufficient. We received a vast range of queries on the Thames Tunnel project and responded to these where we could by directing respondents to the detailed information available on our website. Questions requiring specific information were answered by the project team. We also posted literature on request. The information presented in the consultation material represented a point in time in the development of the Thames Tunnel project. The labelling of drawings as indicative therefore reflected the fact that the project will need to undertake further design work in order to refine the design/proposals further and the fact that the proposals are not fixed. Undertaking our phase two consultation at this point in the design process enables responses and comments received from phase two consultation to be incorporated into our designs. The Waster Water National Policy Statement is publically available to view on Defras website. An SEA is required at the plan/programme level, not the project level. In this instance the plan/programme is the

Other comments included: - only cursory responses have been received in relation to written queries and material referenced on the website did not respond to queries raised
-

a lot of the information was indicative only

the SEA and Waste Water National Policy Statement should have been made available.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-21

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref 30.4.24 Objections, issues and concerns Local residents were not provided with enough understandable information by Thames Water to enable them to respond to the consultation. It was difficult to access and find documents on the consultation website. Respondent ID See annex F of this report. No. 1,335 Our response Waste Water National Policy Statement which was designated on 27 March 2012 and is accompanied by an Appraisal of sustainability that incorporates an SEA. We are therefore satisfied that an SEA has been carried out by the appropriate body. Our website was redesigned following feedback during phase one consultation. We believe our website met best practice in terms of accessibility and usability. We have created a document library where the project documents produced to date, including all the documents published for phase two consultation, can be viewed and downloaded. The website also includes pages devoted to each of our preferred sites as well as information on the need for the project, our proposed solution and changes to our proposals since phase one consultation so that users can more easily find the information they are looking for. Information was made available on our website in three formats; PDF, embedded within webpages and in Scribd. Following feedback from phase one consultation we wanted to maximise the ways in which people could see the information depending on the systems they were using. Incorporating a mix of methods to view information helped us to achieve this. Prior to phase two consultation commencing, we agreed our approach to this phase of consultation with the potentially directly affected local authorities. This included methods for publishing our consultation and disseminating information. This phase of consultation was well advertised, with over 129,515 letters sent out to the surrounding community notifying people of the consultation. Advertisements were also placed in the London Evening Standard and local newspapers, and notices were put up around our preferred sites. The publicity material made it clear that information would be available online, at exhibitions, town halls and libraries and upon request. Information on the project is comprehensive and wide ranging; it would not be cost-effective or environmentally friendly to send detailed information directly to such a vast number of residents. However, where we received requests for copies of documents, we responded and information was dispatched within an appropriate timescale. At each phase of consultation, we tailored the information published to ensure that sufficient information is provided to enable consultees to respond to our consultations. Our approach to producing material was that information should be made available to members of the community in an accessible form and detailed technical information be made available for technical consultees. This is consistent with the guidance provided by the Department for Communities and Local Government in their guidance on pre-application consultation. In relation to our proposals at each of our preferred sites, we provided significantly more information at phase two consultation on our proposals during the construction and operational phases, including how

30.4.25

11564, 11993, 12131, 7007, 7112, 7522, 7601, 8020, 8090, 8109, 8206, 8235, 8504, 8779, 8816, 8824

16

30.4.26

The format of documents on the consultation website made them difficult to read.

12848, 7527, 7747

30.4.27

Consultation documents and information were not delivered directly to local residents' homes.

See annex F of this report

968

30.4.28

The level of detail provided at phase two was worse than phase one consultation.

7024

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-22

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref 30.4.29 Objections, issues and concerns Consultation information and material should have been provided in a variety of different formats and languages. Respondent ID (LR)LBTH, 13241, 13364 No. 3 Our response we propose to mitigate any adverse effects. At the start of phase two consultation we published our Statement of community consultation (SOCC) in the London Evening Standard. The SOCC sets out our approach to consultation including the fact that a language line service was available. In relation to publicising the language line, we also sent 129,515 letters to the surrounding community notifying people of the consultation, and placed site notices around each of our preferred sites. Details of the language line service were included with the letter, using a translation leaflet about the language line, and as part of the site notices. On the back of our literature, we included a paragraph asking people to contact us if they wanted information in a different format and informing them that we provided a translation service through the language line. Information confirming that a language line is available is also contained on our website. We therefore consider that we adequately publicised the availability of our translation services. We sought to notify the public of the consultation in good time and in accordance with statutory requirements and government guidance concerning pre-application consultation. Prior to phase two commencing, 129,515 letters were sent out across the consultation area which included residents within at least 250m from the boundary of each site and within a broad corridor along the tunnel route. The boundary was applied flexibly according to the scale and nature of the proposed works, and taking into account the characteristics of the surrounding area. The letter set out what exhibitions were being held, where and when. We also delivered leaflets setting out details of our exhibitions to all letterboxes close to the exhibition venues, so that occupiers were aware of our proposals and where further information could be obtained on our proposals. We made information on the project available at a variety of locations. These are set out in detail in chapter 2 of the Main report on phase two consultation and included: on our website, at local libraries, town halls and councils, and at our exhibitions, which were held in 23 locations across London. Where requested, we also posted literature. We sought to achieve a balance between the amount of general and technical information provided. We aimed to provide information in a form accessible for all to understand, while still providing sufficient information to comment on the issues highlighted, eg effects arising from the construction and operational phases. We also produced Your guide to phase two consultation which provided further information on what information was available on different topics to aid navigation of the documentation produced. At each exhibition, members of staff were also available to answer any questions attendees may have had on our proposals. Respondents could also access support through a dedicated phone line.

30.4.30

Leaflets about Thames Water drop-in days/exhibitions were not delivered directly to local residents.

See annex F of this report

790

30.4.31

Consultation information and material was not readily available and was difficult to access. There was too much reliance on respondents having access to the internet. Consultation information was difficult to read and understand. Consultation information and material was too simple and not detailed enough.

7460LO, 11544, 11969, 12163, 12446, 12449, 12451, 12452, 13076, 13096, 13143, 7323, 7549, 7601, 8761

15

30.4.32

LR9184LO, 12006, 12392, 12476, 12495, 12701, 12716, 12772, 12794, 12975, 7452, 7828, 7981, 8117, 8689 7460LO, 8303LO, 9131LO, 9287LO, LR9272LO, 11033, 11248, 11499, 11782, 11948, 11999, 12036, 12044, 12194, 12356, 12424, 12634, 12970, 13002, 13128, 13134, 7126, 7323, 7387, 7429, 7452, 7469, 7514, 7789, 7792, 7811, 7950, 7953, 8020, 8075, 8114, 8402, 8534, 8643, 8655, 8747, 8864, 8895,

15

30.4.33

45

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-23

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref 30.4.34 30.4.35 Objections, issues and concerns Consultation information and material was patronising. Consultation information and material was too complex/detailed and hard to understand. Respondent ID 8977, LR13438 13175, 7140, 8288, 8725 LR9184LO, 11011, 11050, 11255, 11286, 11337, 11338, 11341, 11560, 11575, 11584, 11587, 11682, 11684, 11694, 11726, 11789, 11921, 11968, 11976, 11978, 11980, 11996, 12036, 12057, 12095, 12107, 12145, 12286, 12321, 12371, 12469, 12566, 12579, 12586, 12589, 12686, 12698, 12701, 12706, 12714, 12715, 12716, 12767, 12805, 12914, 12975, 12994, 13031, 13066, 13070, 13089, 13105, 13106, 13127, 13159, 13215, 13218, 13228, 13229, 7015, 7180, 7303, 7384, 7438, 7476, 7491, 7502, 7522, 7527, 7547, 7623, 7676, 7728, 7876, 7878, 7892, 7927, 7932, 7972, 8007, 8109, 8209, 8401, 8528, 8657, 9377, LR13438 13397LO, 11255, 11815, 11980, 11993, 12084, 13058, 13193, 7321, 7462, 7502, 7547, 7878, 7909, 7968, 7972, 8413, 8643, 8648, 8657, 8725, 8742, 8793, 8866, 8874, 9303, 9372 8779 7971 7211, 7349 13397LO, 11011, 11110, 11332, 11580, 11581, 11879, 11920, 12006, 12085, 12113, 12469, 12673, 12781, 12851, 12970, 13026, 13058, 13150, 13229, 13363, 7102, 7170, 7476, 7502, 7544, 7878, 7932, 7968, 8109, 9353 8807LO, 11366, 11619, 11664, 11740, 11910, 12088, 12089, 12091, 12094, 12121, 12581, 12601, 12865, 13143, 7012, 7014, 7050, 7107, 7120, 7126, 7167, 7231, 7382, 7387, 7397, 7420, 7469, 7477, 7549, 7692, 7839, 8895, LR13438 No. 4 88 Our response Our approach to producing material was to ensure that information should be made available to members of the community in an accessible form and detailed technical information be made available for technical consultees. This is consistent with the guidance provided by the Department for Communities and Local Government in their guidance on pre-application consultation.

30.4.36

There was too much consultation information and material, which was fragmented so made it difficult to get an overall picture of the proposals. Site information papers were too technical. Site information papers were too detailed. Consultation information and material was too vague. Consultation information was too technical.

27

30.4.37 30.4.38 30.4.39 30.4.40

1 1 2 31

30.4.41

Hard copies of consultation information and consultation material should have been provided directly to residents.

34

An overview leaflet was included with the notification letters sent to community consultees in the vicinity of our preferred sites. The overview leaflet summarised our proposals and described potential effects specifically at our preferred sites, in clear, accessible and non-technical language. The information provided also made it clear where consultees could find more information on the project including on our website, at our exhibitions or by calling a dedicated phone line. In total we sent over 129,515 letters, overview leaflets and language line information sheets to residents with an interest in the project. However, given the volume and size of the documents, direct delivery of all documentation

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-24

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. Our response was not feasible. We felt that providing too much information would reduce the clarity and accessibility of the information contained within the letter. Also, given the number of sites subject to phase two consultation, we did not consider that it was appropriate to presume which site(s) recipients of the letter would be interested in. At the start of phase two consultation, we published our SOCC in the London Evening Standard. The SOCC set out our approach to consultation including that a language line service was available. We also sent 129,515 letters to the surrounding community notifying them of the consultation and placed site notices around each of our preferred sites. Details of the language line service were included with the letter and in the site notices. We therefore consider that we adequately publicised the availability of our translation services. Providing a balanced analysis in our consultation material was imperative and we do not agree that the material was biased in our favour, inaccurate or misleading. All the material presented contained the necessary information for consultees to understand our proposals and make their own judgements. The information presented on noise and lorry movements is based on our preliminary environmental assessment, as reported in the Preliminary environmental information report (PEIR). We did not put information into the public domain which we know to be inaccurate. We are continuing to undertake our environmental impact assessment and review our assessment to date to ensure that any inaccuracies are addressed. We do not consider that the information provided on spill volumes is inaccurate. We stated both the total volumes entering the River Thames and the amount of sewage that would be addressed by the Thames Tunnel project. This is clearly set out in our document Why does London need the Thames Tunnel? The visualisations are an artist's impression of the site; however, we sought to ensure that they represent our proposals for the scheme as accurately as possible. We do not agree that the reporting of our site selection process is misleading. Both the site information papers and appendices of the Phase two scheme development report clearly set out our assessment of the suitability of each site, which sites are our preferred sites and how we reached our preference for a particular site. In relation to transport movements, we will take these detailed points into account when considering the presentation of material within the DCO application documents.

30.4.42

Local residents were not aware that Thames Water offered a language service as part of the consultation process.

See annex F of this report

837

30.4.43

Consultation information and material was inaccurate, in particular in relation to continuous noise and lorry movements and the reduction of untreated sewage entering the River Thames as a result of the Thames Tunnel project.

8803LO, 9126LO, 9131LO, 12116, 12137, 7208, 7209, 7789, 7844, 7981, 8041, 8117, 8402, 8621, 8639, 8753, 8774, 8890, 9007, 9368, 9395, 9475

22

30.4.44

Consultation information and material was misleading in relation to the visuals of the sites after construction and the appraisal of the effects at sites. In particular, the comparison between the suitability of Barn Elms and Carnwath Road Riverside was not clear. It was also not made clear whether Chambers Wharf was the preferred site. The Mayor also raised particular concerns in relation to the presentation of the number of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) rather than the number of HGV movements. The Mayor wanted to see movements numbers used, as this covers both in and outbound HGV movements. Figures are given for each phase of construction, however in many

GLA, 8400LO, 8410LO, 8556LO, 8803LO, 9110LO, 9287LO, 9392LO, 10772, 11025, 11038, 11354, 11523, 11542, 11543, 11635, 11657, 11674, 11806, 11844, 12078, 12112, 12137, 12398, 12524, 12801, 12825, 12828, 12886, 12962, 12987, 13019, 13021, 13064, 13090, 13126, 13137, 13191, 13193, 13203, 13213, 13224, 7129, 7148, 7372, 7403, 7438, 7601, 7843, 7844, 7871, 7878, 7932, 7981, 8041, 8090, 8091, 8281, 8404, 8413, 8621, 8680, 8682, 8749, 8751, 8753, 9097, 9149, 9357, 9445, LR13498

71

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-25

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns cases the phases overlap, so the potential number of HGVs would have to be determined from a combination of available figures. Of more concern is the fact that the numbers presented are daily averages for the phases of work. It is almost certain that within such averages there will be daily and hourly peaks that are considerably in excess of those averages. Consultation information and material was biased and did not present a balanced view, particularly in relation to tunnel as the preferred solution. It would have been helpful to see an independent review of the information provided. Respondent ID No. Our response

30.4.45

13397LO, 7260LO, 8556LO, 8632LO, 8803LO, 8949LO, 9126LO, 11012, 11040, 11254, 11303, 11504, 11560, 11645, 11708, 11709, 11852, 11893, 11905, 11914, 11968, 12036, 12098, 12158, 12163, 12176, 12204, 12228, 12263, 12374, 12424, 12469, 12624, 12678, 12683, 12698, 12848, 12869, 12917, 12918, 12939, 12958, 13051, 13183, 7102, 7105, 7140, 7156, 7265, 7320, 7360, 7390, 7408, 7499, 7557, 7569, 7621, 7672, 7728, 7741, 7754, 7789, 7797, 7844, 7916, 7932, 7981, 8006, 8090, 8235, 8253, 8548, 8624, 8680, 8725, 8728, 8747, 8783, 8849, 8866, 8891, 8903, 9089, 9445

84

Providing a balanced analysis in our consultation material was imperative and we do not agree that the material was biased in our favour, inaccurate or misleading. All the material presented contained the necessary information for consultees to understand our proposals and make their own judgements. The Options project information paper and Needs report both set out the alternative solutions that we have considered and provide sufficient information for an assessment to be made of the relative merits and disbenefits of each alternative. In relation to an independent review, a wide range of stakeholders have been involved in investigating and assessing options to address the problem of CSO discharges into the tidal Thames, over many years. The Thames Tideway Strategic Study included inputs from us, the Environment Agency, the Greater London Authority, Defra and Ofwat (as an observer). Ofwat commissioned its own report (Jacobs Babtie report) to review the work and reports of the TTSS. The National Policy Statement for Waste Water, appraisal of sustainability post-adoption statement dated March 2012 contains further detail on the significant amount of work undertaken to establish the need for the Thames Tunnel project and assess alternative options, so we consider there would be no benefit in undertaking further reviews of options. See the first paragraph of paragraph 30.4.45 for our response to this feedback comment.

30.4.46

Consultation information and material only presented one side of the story.

9147LO, 9417LO, 9481LO, 11674, 12031, 12084, 12105, 12154, 12683, 12691, 12838, 12870, 12958, 13058, 13188, 13197, 7006, 7147, 7218, 7372, 7466, 7499, 7503, 7557, 7672, 7689, 7844, 7922, 8725, 9347 13490LO, 8556LO, 11012, 11185, 11231, 11233, 11505, 11657, 11789, 11806, 11814, 12356, 12691, 12741, 12771, 12886, 12955, 13019, 13031, 13093, 13175, 13181, 13211, 13221, 13224, 7179, 7342, 7672, 7953, 8047, 8567, 8849

30

30.4.47

Some information was deliberately omitted from the consultation material, including traffic movements and Heckford Street.

32

We did not deliberately omitt information from phase two consultation. We carefully considered the information we made available to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. Details of average daily lorry visits to the preferred sites was provided in our site information papers. Information on the shortlisted site Heckford Street can be found in the King Edward Memorial Park Foreshore site information paper, and Phase two scheme development report appendix S. Providing a balanced analysis in our consultation material was imperative and we do not agree that the material was biased in our

30.4.48

More impartial and independent project information should have been provided.

9147LO, 7156, 7265, 7360, 7499, 7514, 7621, 7914, 8662, 9149

10

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-26

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. Our response favour, inaccurate or misleading. All the material presented contained the necessary information for consultees to understand our proposals and make their own judgements. The consultation information acknowledges that the Kirtling Street site is in close proximity to the boat community. More detailed information on the tunnel route can be found in the Site selection background technical paper.

30.4.49

Information contained within the site information papers was incorrect/misleading. In particular it did not mention that Kirtling Street is an established residential community. Information on lorry movements implied that phases of work were separate when in fact they overlap, meaning the total number of lorry movements is greater than stated at particular points in time. Information contained within the project information papers was incorrect/ misleading, in particular in relation to the environmental case for the tunnel and the fact that the location of Deptford Church Street was not marked on the Changes project information paper. The information provided needs to be more consistent. The consultation information and material was a publicity stunt.

9456LO, 9468LO, 9470LO, 11185, 8481, 8774, 9410

30.4.50

7247, 8682, 9303, 9488

30.4.51 30.4.52

11967, 7211, 8621 11174, 11696, 12180, 12758, 12970, 8111, 8751, 8903, 9007

3 9

It was imperative to provide a balanced analysis in our consultation material and we do not agree that the material was inconsistent, inaccurate, misleading or biased in our favour. All the material presented contained the necessary information for consultees to understand our proposals and make their own judgements and documentation published for phase two consultation was consistent with each other. Deptford Church Street is discussed on the penultimate page of the Changes project information paper. Our phase two consultation was not a publicity stunt. We are interested in hearing consultees views on our proposals and are grateful to all respondents who took the time to provide feedback on the proposals presented at our phase two consultation. As set out in this report, we have responded positively to the feedback received and where possible, we will amend our proposals to reflect these comments. We sought to ensure that our consultation material is produced to high standards. All the site information papers and Project information papers were desktop published to ensure that the information contained within the documents was clearly presented. A range of drawings, diagrams, figures and text was also used to ensure that the information was disseminated in the most appropriate way. We identified an isolated incident whereby a small number of site information papers were incorrectly printed for three sites. For the three identified sites, all site information papers were checked and any incorrect copies destroyed. We appreciate that respondents may wish to know more about our proposals. Further information will be made available once the DCO application has been accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for examination. We also propose to continue to engage with consultees up to and following submission of our DCO application. Refer to our CCS for further details. In relation to the specific information requests received, information can

30.4.53 30.4.54

The general quality of consultation material was poor. The quality of the site information papers was poor. During the printing process pages from another site information paper had been inserted. The quality of material and information at the exhibitions was poor. More information was requested on:

12679, 12816, 7792, 9089, 9461, 9421PET 7679

6 1

30.4.55

8571LO

30.4.56

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-27

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. Our response be found in the following documents. It should be noted that site and project information papers provide non-technical information and listed other documents that provided more technical information. This information was contained in the site information papers and the appendices of the Phase two scheme development report. Information on the environmental effects can also be found in the PEIR (sections 4 to 15 of the site volumes) and information on the permanent design of the sites is available in the site chapters of the Design development report. Information on the shortlisted site Heckford Street can be found in the King Edward Memorial Park Foreshore site information paper, and Phase two scheme development report appendix S. Information on Ranelagh Gardens can be found in the Chelsea Embankment Foreshore site information paper, and Phase two scheme development report appendix K. - the Site selection methodology paper details the methodology being used to select construction sites along the route of the main tunnel - the Site selection background technical paper provides technical information to support the Site selection methodology paper, such as the engineering requirements for size of construction sites - the Phase two scheme development report provides an overview of the development of the Thames Tunnel project and how each site was chosen - the Site selection project information paper sets out the process we followed in order to find and select our preferred sites - the site information papers provide information on the site selection of each of our preferred sites The Supplementary report on phase one consultation also sets out all the comments received during phase one consultation and our response to each of the issues raised. These comments fed into the development of our preferred scheme for phase two consultation. This information was contained in the site information papers, Environment project information paper, Odour project information paper and the PEIR. The site volumes of the PEIR (section 7) contain details of the archaeological assessment and section 4 addresses operational odour. The Air management plan also provides more information on air quality once the tunnel is operational. This information was contained in the site information papers. The site volumes of the PEIR (section 10) address the socio-economic effects of our proposals and section 12 looks at transport effects.

30.4.57 30.4.58

- the preferred sites - the shortlisted sites, in particular Heckford Street and Ranelagh Gardens

7235, 7441, 7844, 7968, 8683, 9269, LR13381 WCC, 8400LO, 8556LO, 7218, 7743, 7940, 9347

7 7

30.4.59

- the site selection methodology and justification. This should include an explanation of how Thames Water took into account comments from phase one consultation and revised its proposals accordingly, the role of site sizes in site selection and how brownfield sites were considered.

7140, 7452, 7741, 8209, 8488, 8629

30.4.60

- environmental issues associated with the project, particularly in relation to archaeological assessment and air quality at sites once the tunnel is operational - site specific effects during construction in relation to effects arising from construction traffic including on road junctions, the effect on residents, schools, businesses and property prices from construction works and proposals to reduce noise levels

7792, 7940, 8812, 8821

30.4.61

(LR)LBTH, 11010, 11024, 11191, 11192, 11193, 11194, 11195, 11196, 11197, 11198, 11199, 11200, 11201, 11202, 11203, 11204, 11205, 11206, 11207, 11208, 11209, 11210, 11211, 11212, 11213, 11214, 11215, 11216, 11217, 11218, 11219, 11220, 11221, 11222, 11249, 11257, 11276, 11279, 11331,

61

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-28

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 11734, 11747, 11748, 11863, 7195, 7247, 7352, 7382, 7387, 7452, 7704, 7801, 7922, 7958, 7969, 8062, 8075, 8457, 8750, 8901, 9387 12297 No. Our response

30.4.62

- general construction effects

This information was contained in the site information papers, Managing construction project information paper and the PEIR (sections 4 to 15 of the site volumes) provide further details on construction effects. This information was contained in the site information papers and the PEIR (sections 4 to 15 of the site volumes), which provide further details on effects during operation. This information was contained in the site information papers and the site chapters of the Design development report. This information was contained in the Overflow project information paper and the Needs report.

30.4.63

- site specific effects during operation

11446

30.4.64 30.4.65 30.4.66

- proposals for permanent design and layout - the need for the project - alternative solutions, particularly sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) - alternative tunnel routes - the alignment of the Abbey Mills route, in particular the part of the route between Acton Storm Tanks and Carnwath Road Riverside

12295, 7195 11233, 7981 11286, 12684, 7303, 7499, 7569, 7741, 7916, 9445, 9486 7265, 9347 9147LO, 8404

2 2 9

30.4.67 30.4.68

2 2

The alternative routes were first described in the phase one consultation. Our Routes - Development of the tunnel route document described the alignments considered in general terms and more detail was provided in other phase one consultation material, including our Project overview. The material produced at phase one consultation remained available during phase two consultation. 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. Our preferred and shortlisted routes are described and illustrated throughout the phase two consultation material. The Route and tunnel alignment project information paper provides an overview and detail is provided in the Book of plans. More information can also be found in detailed technical reports, such as the Project overview. We are confident therefore that the information we provided is sufficient. We acknowledge that Greenwich Pumping Station is an important heritage asset with a number of listed structures that can be viewed from the existing public pedestrian routes adjacent to the site. However the site is an operational sewage pumping station and therefore has significant security and safety requirements that can only be ensured by preventing public access to the site. For this reason, we do not consider it appropriate to open up public access to the site, or provide a route alongside the Deptford Creek for public access. Details of the costs of the project are set out in the Funding project information paper. An Energy statement will be submitted with our DCO application which will contain information on carbon accounting. This is addressed in chapter 4 of the Needs report.

30.4.69

Other information requests included: 8002LO, 8303LO, 9094LO, 12406, 13389, - whether there will be a continuation of the 7270, 7292, 7372, 7429, 7456, 7782, 7981, 8299, 8481, 8680, 8753, 9384 Creekside footpath

17

costs of the project carbon accounting volume of water and sewage and type of

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-29

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns sewage entering the River Thames
-

Respondent ID

No.

Our response This is shown in the drawings contained within the site information papers and appendices of the Phase two scheme development report. Information on construction effects is contained within the site volumes of the PEIR (sections 4 to 15 of the site volumes). This information was contained in the Environment project information paper, draft Waste strategy and draft Code of Construction Practice (CoCP). Our assessment in relation to access off Heckford Street and King Edward Memorial Park Foreshore is contained within appendix S of the Phase two scheme development report. The Environment Agency is our environmental regulator. Refer to the Regulatory framework project information paper for further information. Analysis has been undertaken since 2001 to investigate and assess strategic alternatives to addressing the problem of CSO discharges into the tidal Thames. The TTSS group established in 2001 reported on alternatives in 2005 and carried out additional work in 2006. The TTSS working group (chaired by Professor Binnie) made a definitive recommendation that the full tunnel option was the best solution. In March 2007, Defra undertook a regulatory impact assessment on sewage collection and treatment for London. The assessment considered various approaches to meeting the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) requirements, mainly focusing on tunnelbased solutions but also reviewing work that had been carried out on alternative approaches. Options were assessed in terms of their ability to meet environmental objectives, agreed as part of the TTSS and confirmed by the Environment Agency as appropriate. Following this assessment, the Government concluded that we should proceed with a tunnel-based approach to address unsatisfactory discharges into the tidal Thames. Since this announcement, we have carried out further investigations leading to refinements in the preferred route for the Thames Tunnel project and to improved knowledge of the level of discharges from CSOs into the River Thames. The output of this work is documented in the Needs report. The Government has recently published a report entitled Creating a River Thames fit for our future: A strategic and economic case for the Thames Tunnel. This report provides an update to the 2007 regulatory impact assessment and takes into account data emerging since that time. The report contains an appraisal of alternative solutions and concludes that a tunnel solution remains the most appropriate and costeffective of the solutions considered. As a result, the Government confirmed that the detailed studies undertaken continue to confirm the case for the Thames Tunnel project. This work has been undertaken independently and our preference for a tunnel solution is based on over a decade of research.

the location of the existing sewer system (in plan form) noise, vibration, odour and traffic impacts of the proposed works where excavated material will be taken to and how it will be disposed of comparison of road miles used for King Edward Memorial Park Foreshore and Heckford Street relationship between Thames Water and the Environment Agency conflict of interest statement by Thames Water, disclosing the potential benefit to them or their investors in pursuing the various options

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-30

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns


-

Respondent ID

No.

Our response We can confirm that Macquerie Bank have not been involved in developing the proposals for the Thames Tunnel project.

statement as to whether Macquarie Bank have had any involvement in developing these proposals. 30.4.71 30.4.72

30.4.70

More information is needed on:

We consider that we undertook 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. We are confident therefore that the information we provided is sufficient. In relation to the specific information requests received, information can be found in the following documents. 12 Details of our preferred sites are described and illustrated throughout the phase two consultation material, including the site information papers which provide an overview of the details provided in the appendices of the Phase two scheme development report. Specifically for Carnwath Road Riverside, refer to appendix G of the Phase two scheme development report. 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 details provided in the appendices of the Phase two scheme development report. Specifically for Heckford Street, refer to the King Edward Memorial Park Foreshore site information paper and appendix S of the Phase two scheme development report Details of our site selection methodology and our preferred and shortlisted sites are described and illustrated throughout the phase two consultation material. This includes the site information papers, which provide an overview of the details provided in the appendices of the Phase two scheme development report, Site selection methodology paper and Site selection background technical paper. For further information on the following sites refer to the appendices of the Phase two scheme development report listed below: - Borthwick Wharf Foreshore/Deptford Church Street - appendix U - Barn Elms/Carnwath Road Riverside - appendix G - King's Stairs Gardens - appendix R. The PEIR was available on our website and at each of the exhibitions. The PEIR sets out our preliminary environmental assessment from the environmental impact assessment. Our complete assessment will be contained in the Environmental statement submitted with our DCO application. Our preliminary assessment is contained within the PEIR. The PEIR (sections 4 to 15 of the site volumes) contains information on the specified topics. Information is also contained within our site information papers.

30.4.71

- the preferred sites, specifically Carnwath 11069, 11187, 11737, 12729, 12769, Road Riverside and more generally in 13099, 7141, 7469, 7990, 8241, 8295, regard to the number of residents that will 8329 be affected by the project at each site

30.4.72

- the shortlisted sites, in particular Heckford Street

(LR)LBTH, 8400LO, 8556LO, 11187, 12601, 12677, 12684, 12743, 12782, 12818, 12845, 12952, 12991, 13099, 13180, 7127, 7192, 7613, 7918, 8006, 8103, 8530, 8799, 8892, 8896, LR9152,

26

30.4.73

- the site selection methodology and justification including the decision to move sites from: Borthwick Wharf to Deptford Church Street; Barn Elms to Carnwath Riverside and why Kings Stairs Gardens remains on the shortlist

13135, 7127, 7297, 7601, 7828, 8682, 8749, 8753, 8793, 8865

10

30.4.74

- environmental issues associated with the project; the PEIR was not provided and the information that was provided was incomplete - site specific effects during construction including the effect on local residents and on green spaces, the effects of noise and traffic, and how conclusions have been arrived at. More information should also be provided from site surveys especially

9085LO, 9086LO, 9131LO, LR13496LO, 12788, 7968, 8855, LR13381

30.4.75

GLA, 7285LO, 8796LO, 9131LO, 11231, 11550, 12012, 12537, 12640, 12689, 12757, 12772, 12845, 12923, 12952, 12957, 12996, 13014, 13024, 13030, 13040, 13048, 13059, 13062, 13064, 13085, 13088, 13098, 13101, 13140,

55

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-31

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise assessment Respondent ID 13148, 13168, 13187, 13221, 13230, 13232, 7012, 7050, 7346, 7377, 7566, 7621, 7658, 7792, 7811, 8209, 8215, 8241, 8402, 8621, 8635, 8673, 8759, 8764, LR9117 8003LO, 12348, 7420, 8654, LR13498, LR9112 No. Our response

30.4.76

- general construction effects including: - duration of the works - effect of day-to-day impact of works - rationale for Thames Water's preference to use road transport over barge including provision of detailed costings regarding the impact on the local community - potential damage to property and sensitive equipment. - the site information papers did not provide sufficient information - in relation to Kirtling Street, more detailed information on road, pavement and footpath closures and stopping-up measures should be provided, including a programme showing integration with other development work schedules to ensure that adequate access provisions are maintained for the pier at all times. - how construction effects would be managed, in particular in relation to effect on human health

General information on construction effects is contained within the site information papers and the site volumes of the PEIR. In relation to the specific requests, the information can be found in: - section 3 of the site volumes of the PEIR for duration of works - sections 4 to 15 of the site volumes of the PEIR for impacts of works - information on our transport strategy is contained within the Transport project information paper - information on damage to property and sensitive equipment is contained within the Settlement project information paper. The site volumes of the PEIR (section 12) contain our preliminary Transport assessment. Further details on the matters raised will be contained within the Transport assessment to be submitted with our DCO application.

30.4.77

9456LO, 9468LO, 9470LO, 11011, 7809, 9303, 9410

30.4.78

12516, 13014, 7371, 7977, 9349, LR13381, LR9111

Details of how construction effects will be managed are described and illustrated throughout the phase two consultation material. The site information papers and the Managing construction project information paper provide an overview, and more detail is provided in the site volumes of the PEIR (section 10). Our draft CoCP which was published as part our material for phase two consultation, also contains information on how our construction effects will be managed. While not a formal requirement we are also preparing a Health impact assessment for submission with the DCO application. The health impact assessment will assess the potential health and well-being effects of the project on identified vulnerable groups. Details of site specific effects during operation are described and illustrated throughout the phase two consultation material. This includes the site information papers, which provide an overview of the detail provided in the PEIR (sections 4 to 15 of the site volumes). Further information is also contained within the Odour project information paper and the Air management plan. Details of permanent design and layout are described and illustrated throughout the phase two consultation material. This includes the site

30.4.79

- site specific effects during operation, particularly documenting the effects of odour on local residents - the management of operational effects

7217

30.4.80

7186

30.4.81

- proposals for permanent design and layout, in particular the height of

EH, 8003LO, 13183

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-32

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns ventilation columns Respondent ID No. Our response information papers and Design project information paper, which provide an overview; further detail is provided in the site chapters of the Design development report. Details on the need for the Thames Tunnel project are contained within the Overflow project information paper, which provides an overview; more detail can be found in chapter 4 of the Needs report. Details on alternative solutions for the project are contained within the Options project information paper, which provides an overview; more detail can be found in chapter 5 of the Needs report, which includes a review of solutions used elsewhere. A comprehensive energy assessment is being undertaken for the project which considers the whole life cycle for carbon embedded in the project. This assessment is being used to identify how engineering decisions can influence carbon embedded in the project, allowing us to minimise these emissions where possible and practical. The results of energy assessment will be contained within the Energy statement submitted with our DCO application.

30.4.82

- the need for the Thames Tunnel project, including clearer information on water quality and 3D time lapse models and analysis - alternative solutions, including costs and carbon costs of the project and alternative solutions used elsewhere

8569LO, 11737, 11999, 12729, 13050, 7621, 7627, 7754, 8209, 8402, 8680, 8753

12

30.4.83

8803LO, 9085LO, 9086LO, 9093LO, 11020, 11022, 11042, 11043, 11044, 11045, 11046, 11073, 11536, 11540, 11561, 11571, 11674, 11737, 11844, 11861, 11987, 12275, 12326, 12406, 12474, 12684, 12694, 12729, 12732, 12749, 12753, 12917, 12918, 13050, 13098, 13140, 13193, 7140, 7338, 7571, 7627, 7811, 8234, 8497, 8566, 8651, 8682, 8745, 8753, 8779, 8892, 8903, 8971, 9007, 9347, 9357, LR9112

57

30.4.84

- the project information papers did not 9303 provide sufficient information in relation to potential alternatives to a full tunnel - the preferred tunnel route 7127

30.4.85

Details of the preferred tunnel route are contained within the Route and tunnel alignment project information paper, which provides an overview. More detail can be found in the Site selection background technical paper. Details of the preferred tunnel alignment are contained within the Route and tunnel alignment project information paper, which provides an overview. More detail can be found in the Site selection background technical paper.

30.4.86

- the alignment of the Abbey Mills route, in particular: - the alignment at Stanford Brook - technical information from an independent source - detailed breakdown of costs. - costings/value for money for individual sites

7030, 7247, 8890, 9395, 9475

30.4.87

13397LO, 9093LO, 9105LO, 9109LO, 11296, 12953, 12986, 13003, 13024, 13207, 7490, 7566, 7704, 7754, 7792, 7828, 7876, 7940, 7968, 8098, 8226, 8402, 8636, 8753, 9007, 9149, 9467, LR13381, LR9112 EH, GLA, LBHF, LBN, (LR)LBS, LBW, WCC, 8410LO, 9105LO, 9140LO, 7024, 7406, 7434, 7792, 7978, 7981, 8112, 8206, 8306, 8402, 8404, 8405, 8407, 8458, 8497, 8575, 8624, 8636, 8646, 8834, 8853, 8855, 8896, 8902, 9387, 9461, LR9418,

29

Details on the cost of the project are contained within the Funding project information paper.

30.4.88

- the need for the project, the reasons for a tunnel as the chosen solution/alternatives considered and the cost of the proposed works. - programme

37

Information on the need for the project and solutions considered are set out in the Needs report and the Overflow and Options project information papers.

Information on the programme is contained within the Timing project information paper.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-33

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns - the design of the tunnel and associated risks including methods considered for constructing the tunnel - a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and why one has not been carried out Respondent ID No. Our response Information on the design of the tunnel and methods for constructing the tunnel is contained within the Route and tunnel alignment, Build and Settlement project information papers. An SEA is required at the plan/programme level, not the project level. In this instance the plan/programme is the Waste Water National Policy Statement which was designated on 27 March 2012 and is accompanied by an Appraisal of sustainability that incorporates an SEA. We are therefore satisfied that an SEA has been carried out by the appropriate body. These documents will be submitted as part of our DCO application. Ongoing discussions will continue with bodies such as English Heritage and TfL to address progress and content of these documents, where appropriate.

- assessments being undertaken including the Energy statement, Sustainability statement, Equalities impact assessment and Transport assessment including traffic movements/routes including the Transport strategy, Construction logistics plan and detailed traffic modelling. This should also address alternative approaches to construction logistics which have been considered and how Thames Water will ensure contractors comply with the logistics strategy. Consideration will need to be given to ownership and long-term function, maintenance and governance of the site which adjoins the Transport for London owned highway - detailed information in relation to specific sites, such as lorry routes

Further information on the proposals at each of the sites will be contained in our DCO application. Details of the proposed construction routes were contained within each of the site information papers and in the site volumes of the PEIR (section 12). We can confirm that those along the proposed construction works will have been notified; either through the land referencing exercise or because they were within the consultation boundary described below. This report, along with the main and summary reports, comprises our Report on phase two consultation. The reports set out the feedback received and our initial response including possible amendments to our proposal. We will also submit a Consultation report with our DCO application, which will set out all the consultation that has been undertaken and how we have responded to feedback received. 8949LO, 10243, 10244, 10265, 10474, 10478, 10595, 10632, 10712, 8951, 9510, 9565, 9621, 9622, 9667, 9672, 9690, 9693, 9701, 9918, 9928, 9946, 9947, 9998, LR10802, LR10821 26 We recognise that English is not the first language for everyone with an interest in our project. As a result, we made sure that translation services were available. Our language line was available for anyone who wished to use it. At the start of phase two consultation we published our SOCC in the London Evening Standard. The SOCC set out our approach to consultation including the fact that a language line service was available.

- findings from the phase two consultation and amendments to the scheme.

30.4.89

Respondents had to use the Thames Water language line to help them understand the proposals.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-34

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. Our response We also sent 129,515 letters to the surrounding community notifying them of the consultation, and placed site notices around each of our preferred sites. Details of the language line service were included with the letter and in the site notices. We therefore consider that we adequately publicised the availability of our translation services. At each exhibition, members of the project team from different disciplines including engineering, planning, property, environmental and communications were in attendance. This was to ensure that queries could be responded to as far as possible. All our staff attending exhibitions were given comprehensive training. This comprised of two elements: attendance on a day-long training course which explored how to engage with and respond to attendees at exhibitions; and before an exhibition at each location, all members of the team attending were given a dedicated briefing session which covered matters such as health and safety, and identified areas which might be of particular concern/interest to those attending the exhibition. The exhibition panels gave an overview of information relating to the project and our proposals at sites. At each exhibition, more detailed site information papers, Project information papers and a copy of all technical documents produced for phase two consultation were available for inspection. Members of staff were also available to answer any questions. We have created a document library on our website, where the project documents produced to date including all the documents published for phase two consultation can be viewed and downloaded. The website also includes pages devoted to each of our preferred sites as well as information on the need for the project, our proposed solution and changes to our proposals since phase one consultation so that users can more easily find the information they are looking for. We consider that we undertook a thorough and comprehensive consultation exercise. As part of this, we carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation, including at our exhibitions, to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. The exhibition panels were intended to give an overview of the key information for key issues. At each exhibition, more detailed site information papers, Project information papers and a copy of all technical documents produced for phase two consultation were available for inspection. Members of staff were also available to answer any questions. We are confident therefore that the information we provided is sufficient. We received a vast range of queries on the project and responded to these where we could by directing respondents to the detailed information available on our website and posting literature on request. We responded to correspondence requesting specific information within ten working days, if the enquiry was complex and required longer then

30.4.90

Thames Water staff members attending exhibitions were poorly informed/provided conflicting information about particular elements of the scheme.

7285LO, 8571LO, LR9272LO, 11550, 12719, 12769, 13002, 13119, 13164, 13237, 7015, 7323, 7446, 7456, 7626, 7627, 7693, 7839, 8235, 8481, 8621, 8643, 8653, 8657, 8686, 8836, 8841, 8953, 9019, 9357, 9377, 9384, LR13441

33

30.4.91

The amount of consultation material and information available at the exhibitions was insufficient.

7672

30.4.92

The level of detail about the project provided 7293, 7323, 7627, 7794, 8841 at the exhibitions was insufficient. Not enough of the presentation material was about proposals affecting local sites.

30.4.93

Requests for further or specific information (LR)LBTH, 9131LO, 13148, 13243, 8047, 8296, 8537, 8575, 8758, 9377, 9467 have not been responded to. In particular, responses to queries were received late in the consultation period, providing insufficient time for individuals to respond to the

11

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-35

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns additional information provided. Respondent ID No. Our response we advised the individual or organisation that this would be the case.

30.5
30.5.1

Other comments on the consultation process


During the phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether they had any other comments on the consultation process (see question 17 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). Table 30.5.1 sets out details of the different groups who responded to confirm they had comments on the consultation process; 39 respondents feedback comments were received after the close of phase two consultation . Tables 30.5.2 and 30.5.3 then detail the feedback comments received in relation to the information provided. It should be noted, that not all respondents who provided feedback comments confirmed whether enough information had been provided. Table 30.5.1 Number of respondents who had other comments on the Thames Tunnel project consultation process (Q17) Respondent type Number of respondents Yes Statutory consultees 3 No 0 Consumer Council for Water (CCW) English Heritage (EH) Marine Management Organisation (MMO) 0 LBHF LBTH 24 1,691 0 60 2,648 7 15 No response 18

Local authorities 2

Landowners Community consultees Petitions 49

1,500 2 - 10,528 signatories, of which 1218 received since 4 November 2011 - 4,766 signatories

Total

1,556

1,715

2,748

Supportive and neutral feedback comments Table 30.5.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments relating to the consultation process Ref 30.5.2 Supportive and neutral comments The overall consultation process during phase two was good. In particular, it has been a model process that should be replicated by others and Thames Water has also been responsive to information requests/clarifications on the proposals. Respondent ID (LR)CCW, (LR)CE, 13401LO, 11445, 12777, 7036, 7243, 7251, 7255, 7275, 7312, 7447, 7521, 7574, 7767, 7800, 7847, 7887, 7889, 7919, 7941, 7953, 7969, 8018, 8216, 8337, 8401, 8447, 8489, 8501, 8535, 8578, 8628, 8637, No. 49 Our response Your support is noted and welcomed.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-36

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID 8638, 8644, 8777, 8804, 8894, 8901, 9079, 9099, 9348, 9387, 9488, LR8975, LR9114, LR9121, LR9154 7147 8489 8018, 8644, 8871 7231, 7347, 8194, 9138, 9488 7444, 8901 7231, 7709, 7839, 7852, 7883, 8682 7904, 7957 11657, 12666, 7221 11445, 8501 No. Our response

30.5.3 30.5.4 30.5.5 30.5.6 30.5.7 30.5.8 30.5.9 30.5.10 30.5.11

Phase two consultation was well organised. The consultation process has been transparent. The quality of presentations given by Thames Water was good. The quality of the exhibitions during phase two consultation was good. Good to have exhibitions at the weekend. The consultation website was very useful. The consultation website was accessible and easy to use. Publicity for phase two consultation was good. Thames Water has given people sufficient time and opportunity to submit their comments. Thames Water has taken on board and responded to feedback provided at phase one consultation. Thames Water staff members were very helpful. Thames Water responded promptly to enquiries. Thames Water staff members attending exhibitions were very approachable. The feedback form was easy to complete. The material set out at the exhibition was good. Other supportive comments raised included: - support for engagement with elected representatives, officers, community groups, schools and residents during both phase one and phase two consultations - value the extremely high standard of engagement undertaken with English Heritage.

1 1 3 5 2 6 2 3 2

30.5.12

7167, 7189, 7735, 7800, 7889, 8034, 8323, 8644, 8728, 8777, 8780, 9079, LR8975, LR9114, LR9154 8887LO, 9109LO, 7325, 7347, 7447, 7781, 7905, 7924, 8224, 8447, 8637, 8638, 8780, 8854, 8861, 9138 13401LO 7325, 7905, 7924, LR9114 8624 7291, LR8975 EH, 8089, LR9315

15

30.5.13

16

30.5.14 30.5.15 30.5.16 30.5.17 30.5.18

1 4 1 2 3

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-37

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref 30.5.19 Supportive and neutral comments No comment on the question. Respondent ID 7460LO, 7337, 7346, 8016 No. 4 Our response

Objections, issues and concerns Table 30.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns relating to the consultation process Ref 30.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns The overall consultation process during phase two consultation was poor; it was too complicated, not enough information was provided, it was poorly organised and flawed. Respondent ID (LR)LBTH, 8400LO, 8803LO, 8949LO, 9105LO, 11026, 11060, 11097, 11188, 11246, 11248, 11261, 11302, 11400, 11484, 11548, 11560, 11586, 11638, 11645, 11646, 11671, 11701, 11702, 11709, 11751, 11784, 11787, 11802, 11820, 11842, 11860, 11898, 11987, 12110, 12132, 12137, 12158, 12163, 12195, 12232, 12401, 12446, 12449, 12458, 12463, 12465, 12484, 12550, 12552, 12553, 12598, 12616, 12675, 12699, 12701, 12703, 12713, 12717, 12719, 12753, 12782, 12809, 12812, 12826, 12842, 12846, 12858, 12859, 12885, 12927, 12948, 12958, 12964, 12967, 13002, 13026, 13047, 13054, 13055, 13100, 13175, 13178, 13185, 13191, 13211, 13218, 13243, 7192, 7196, 7216, 7238, 7269, 7271, 7286, 7340, 7413, 7424, 7445, 7476, 7491, 7514, 7621, 7692, 7699, 7730, 7735, 7757, 7871, 7914, 7968, 8020, 8199, 8242, 8300, 8402, 8456, 8497, 8528, 8553, 8559, 8566, 8567, 8626, 8629, 8648, 8725, 8737, 8759, 8772, 8814, 8816, 8828, 8854, 8900, 8971, 9097, 9149, 9467, 9476, LR13381, LR13441, LR13446 (LR)MMO, (LR)LBTH, 13210, 13364, 9494 No. 143 Our response Prior to phase two consultation commencing, we agreed our approach to this phase of consultation with the potentially directly affected local authorities. This approach was set out in our SOCC. Information was available online and at 23 exhibitions held at different times of day. Our freephone 24hr helpline also provided access to the project team to help answer questions. Our approach to producing material was that information should be made available to members of the community in an accessible form and detailed technical information be made available for technical consultees. Our approach is consistent with the guidance provided by the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Planning Inspectorate on pre-application consultation and we are confident that our approach is compliant with pre-application requirements of the Planning Act 2008. We do not therefore agree that the approach we took to this phase of consultation, the information provided or the methods used to obtain feedback on our proposals have been poor.

Consultation process

30.5.21

Phase two consultation has not fulfilled the pre-application consultation requirements of the Planning Act 2008, particularly in regard to hard-to-reach groups, faith groups and individuals and groups who live or work further away from but have an interest in King Edward Memorial Park. The small radius of the consultation area means that the duty to consult the local community as required by Section 47 of the Act has not been met.

In devising and carrying out our consultation strategy, we met the requirements of the Planning Act 2008 and have had regard to the Department for Communities and Local Government guidance on preapplication consultation. A requirement of the Planning Act 2008 is that we consult with potentially directly affected local authorities on our SOCC prior to undertaking consultation. In June and July 2011 we reconsulted on our SOCC with potentially directly affected local authorities and secured broad agreement on our proposed approach. As part of the consultation, potentially directly affected local authorities were given the opportunity to comment on our proposals for hard-toreach groups and our proposed consultation boundary; again broadly there was support for these specific elements of our consultation strategy.

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-38

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. Our response Our approach to producing material was that information should be made available to members of the community in an accessible form and detailed technical information be made available for technical consultees. This is consistent with the guidance provided by the Department for Communities and Local Government in their guidance on pre-application consultation. We therefore do not agree that we have not fulfilled the pre-application consultation requirements of the Planning Act 2008. We introduced new sites as part of our phase two consultation. However, in planning for our phase two consultation, we recognised that communities in the vicinity of new sites at phase two consultation may not have commented in response to our phase one consultation. This has informed the scope of phase two consultation in the following ways: - we again sought feedback on elements of the project which relate to the need to reduce the amount of sewage entering the River Thames, a storage and transfer tunnel as a solution to addressing CSO discharges and the route of the tunnel. This was to ensure that everyone had a fair opportunity to comment on these elements of the project and influence its design - prior to phase two consultation, we undertook interim engagement on new sites which had emerged as being potentially suitable as a result of a review of sites identified through the site selection process. Interim engagement was held over the summer period, and helped us to understand the key issues and concerns of local residents and other stakeholders. The proposals presented at phase two consultation take into account the comments received during interim engagement. - where new preferred sites have been presented at phase two consultation, we designed all our preferred sites to the same level of detail irrespective of whether or not they were included as preferred sites at phase one consultation. All the feedback comments received in response to phase two consultation have been analysed and considered and we will decide whether the Thames Tunnel project needs to be amended in light of the comments received. Given the scope of our phase two consultation, the consultation materials we published and the activities carried out during phase two consultation, we do not consider that residents living in the vicinity of any preferred site not identified at phase one consultation have been prejudiced by the fact that they did not comment at phase one consultation. With regard to the duration of phase two consultation, prior to phase two consultation commencing, we consulted with the potentially directly affected local authorities on the length of phase two consultation and broadly secured agreement that 14 weeks was an appropriate length of time. The duration of phase two consultation is considerably longer than the statutory minimum, which states that consultation must last a

30.5.22

The preferred site was not consulted on at phase one consultation, so phase two consultation is the first opportunity to comment on the suitability of the site. This is not fair since some respondents have only had 14 weeks to consider proposals in comparison to 14 months. Even when comparing the duration of phase one and phase two consultations, phase one consultation was also four weeks longer, providing those against the Barn Elms site longer to respond. In order to accommodate any further site selection changes, there would need to be a clear phase three consultation period to allow for representatives regarding any further new or reinstated preferred sites. This is not currently planned. The Thames Tunnel project notification letter also said that the project asked for views on proposed sites at phase one consultation, which is not correct since Carnwath Road Riverside was clearly ruled out at phase one consultation so Thames Water did not ask for comments.

7285LO, 7331LO, 7460LO, 8082LO, 8807LO, 8887LO, 9131LO, 9392LO, 9417LO, 9481LO, 7112, 7121, 7127, 7177, 7193, 7196, 7235, 7301, 7343, 7378, 7394, 7427, 7428, 7476, 7483, 7485, 7502, 7507, 7510, 7521, 7524, 7527, 7537, 7545, 7554, 7567, 7569, 7601, 7607, 7628, 7639, 7661, 7671, 7677, 7680, 7686, 7691, 7694, 7704, 7743, 7752, 7753, 7759, 7764, 7765, 7766, 7792, 7870, 7894, 7913, 7914, 7955, 7958, 7968, 7972, 7977, 8020, 8022, 8027, 8030, 8075, 8117, 8121, 8210, 8223, 8241, 8404, 8413, 8537, 8542, 8652, 8743, 8824, 8855, 8865, 8891, 8904, 9089, 9303, 9461, 9474

91

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-39

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. Our response minimum of 28 days. We therefore consider that we provided those with an interest in the project ample time to respond to our consultation. In relation to the suggested 'phase three consultation', our SOCC recognises that: we may need to amend our scheme after the commencement of our phase two consultation. Should this be necessary, we would consider on a site-by-site basis whether our changes would affect the nature of the comments received from the public at phase two consultation, and where appropriate undertake further targeted consultation. This would comprise public exhibitions and provision of project information, and would be for a period of not less than 28 days. We would also give 14 days notice through the publishing of local adverts and provision of information on our website. Consultation information was accessible to those without the use of a computer. 129,515 letters were sent to those living at least 250m from the boundary of each site and within a broad corridor along the tunnel route informing them of the project and the exhibition details. The boundary was applied flexibly according to the scale and nature of the proposed works and taking into account the characteristics of the surrounding area. We also provided a hard copy of the feedback form and any other project information we produced for phase two consultation to those who requested it. The exhibitions also provided a further opportunity to view the project information and collect a hard copy of the feedback form. Hard copies of the consultation material were also available at a range of town halls and libraries (refer to appendix H of the Main report on phase two consultation for further details). Information was also available by calling the free 24-hour helpline. Phase two consultation ran between 4 November 2011 and 10 February 2012, for a period of 14 weeks. Prior to commencing phase two consultation, we consulted with potentially directly affected local authorities on the length of phase two consultation and broadly secured agreement that 14 weeks was an appropriate length of time. The duration of phase two consultation is considerably longer than the statutory minimum, which states that consultation must last a minimum of 28 days. We therefore consider that we provided those with an interest in the project ample time to respond to our consultation and that the duration of consultation was consistent with our CCS. We sought to make the consultation process simple and accessible to all who have an interest in the Thames Tunnel project. Our CCS provides details of the consultation process, including future opportunities to provide comments on our proposals, and was made available on our website and at each exhibition. On 4 November 2011, we published our SOCC which explained what the previous consultation had undertaken, what we were consulting on at phase two consultation, and how interested parties could respond to our consultation. The Consultation project information paper was published

30.5.23

Thames Water has not properly catered for those without access to a computer/the internet.

12024, 7167, 7288, 7466, 7639, 8076, 8109, 8219, 8281, 8306, 9377

11

30.5.24

The consultation period was too short. Phase one consultation was four weeks longer than the phase two consultation, despite the fact that Thames Water has published a large volume of additional technical material at the phase two consultation. Such an approach is contrary to the CCS since insufficient time was provided to review the documentation. The consultation process has been unclear.

See annex F of this report

329

30.5.25

13397LO, 9109LO, 7320, 7502, 9209

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-40

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. Our response to provide a clear understanding of our consultations. The findings from phase two consultation are the subject of the Summary report, Main report and this Supplementary report, which together set out the process undertaken when analysing the feedback received, the issues raised and our response to these issues. Phase two consultation ran between 4 November 2011 and 10 February 2012, for a period of 14 weeks. Prior to commencing phase two consultation, we consulted with the potentially directly affected local authorities on the length of phase two consultation and broadly secured agreement that 14 weeks was an appropriate length of time. The duration of phase two consultation is considerably longer than the statutory minimum, which states that consultation must last a minimum of 28 days. We therefore consider that we provided those with an interest in the project ample time to respond to our consultation and that the duration of consultation was consistent with our CCS . 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. Heckford Street is an identified shortlisted site for our preferred site, King Edward Memorial Park Foreshore. Details of this site are provided and illustrated throughout the phase two consultation material, including the King Edward Memorial Park Foreshore site information paper and the Phase two scheme development report appendix S. We are confident therefore that the information we provided is sufficient. Prior to phase two consultation commencing, we agreed the publicity we would undertake with the potentially directly affected local authorities. We used a range of methods to publicise phase two consultation which included: - 129,515 letters sent out to the surrounding community notifying them of the consultation - advertisements placed in the London Evening Standard and local newspapers and publicity through media interviews - notices put up around our preferred sites and leaflets hand delivered to the surrounding community in advance of exhibitions - pre-briefing for statutory consultees and local authorities, including officers, on 3 November 2011. The manner in which we publicised phase two consultation is compliant with statutory requirements and consistent with government guidance concerning pre-application consultation. We therefore do not agree that the Thames Tunnel project and associated consultation has been low-key. Prior to phase two consultation commencing, we consulted with the potentially directly affected local authorities on our draft SOCC. Where possible, we incorporated the feedback we received from the potentially directly affected local authorities. The comments received and our response is set out in the Local authority and stakeholder

30.5.26

Thames Water has not given people sufficient opportunity to give feedback, particularly in relation to proposals at Heckford Street which are not sufficiently developed to enable an informed response.

9417LO, 9481LO, 7125, 7216, 7280, 7339, 7507, 7865, 7968, 7990, LR9152

11

30.5.27

Thames Water is keeping the Thames Tunnel project and consultation deliberately low-key.

7460LO, 8563LO, 11038, 11548, 11587, 11624, 11635, 11651, 11686, 12003, 12211, 12292, 12440, 12759, 12802, 12834, 12967, 12970, 13051, 13119, 13139, 13148, 13178, 13183, 13218, 13243, 7216, 7384, 7500, 7549, 7566, 7767, 8743, 9377

34

30.5.28

The views of local authorities should be taken into account.

7006, 7045, 7102, 7187, 7216, 7341, 7663

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-41

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. Our response consultation feedback report dated summer 2011, which is available upon request. In addition, as set out in our CCS, we have undertaken 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 comments received from local authorities in response to the formal consultation in accordance with statutory requirements. The feedback from phase two consultation has been the subject of careful analysis which is presented in this report making it clear, in line with legislation and Planning Inspectorate advice, where we have made changes (such as the consideration of alternative sites as well as technical solutions), where we are examining mitigation in response to the feedback, and where we are not making changes (and the reasons why not). An integral part of the pre-application process is the legal 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, and that we take account of all the comments received in response to consultation. We also need to have regard to guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government in respect of the pre-application consultation requirements. At phase one consultation, we consulted on the need to reduce the amount of sewage entering the River Thames, a storage and transfer tunnel as a solution to addressing CSO discharges, the route of the tunnel, our preferred construction sites and 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 from phase one consultation and further engineering design refinements identified by the project team. As set out in the Changes project information paper, it has led to a number of new preferred sites being identified at phase two consultation. This Report on phase two consultation sets out our response to the feedback received during this phase of consultation. Our DCO application must be accompanied by a Consultation report explaining how we have responded to public consultation including explanation of instances where no change to the scheme design is proposed in response to comments received through consultation. 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. In relation to the points raised regarding the information provided, for us, providing a balanced analysis in our consultation material was imperative. All the material presented contained necessary information for consultees to understand our proposals and make their own

30.5.29

Consultation feedback will not be taken into consideration.

7260LO, 7996LO, LR9271LO, 8090, 8653, 8776, 8805, LR13430

30.5.30

Thames Water must consider the view of local people. This must be documented in a transparent way.

8321LO, 7460LO, 9092LO, 9126LO, 9147LO, LR9274LO, 10168, 10448, 11189, 11594, 11790, 11872, 12238, 12488, 12531, 12638, 13014, 13047, 13054, 13055, 13073, 13107, 13201, 13218, 13240, 13380, 7003, 7014, 7102, 7110, 7117, 7125, 7126, 7127, 7129, 7140, 7141, 7142, 7148, 7157, 7166, 7187, 7190, 7205, 7208, 7209, 7218, 7221, 7224, 7265, 7276, 7280, 7295, 7317, 7336, 7341, 7352, 7366, 7440, 7464, 7466, 7482, 7497, 7512, 7527, 7616, 7617, 7630, 7655, 7663, 7693, 7700, 7760, 7828, 7844, 7865, 7882, 7935, 7982, 7990, 8047, 8085, 8090, 8111, 8202, 8234, 8288, 8291, 8297, 8300, 8423, 8456, 8540, 8566, 8675, 8734, 8776, 8824, 8849, 8854, 8885, 8900, 9088, 9137, 9366, 9599, LR13382, LR9136, LR9154, LR9280 9107LO, 9147LO, 7102, 7133, 7208, 7209, 7226, 7241, 7621, 7672, 7699, 7743, 7744, 7757, 7792, 7865, 8041, 8047, 8242, 8418, 8662, 8890, 9395, 9475

110

30.5.31

There is a lack of transparency regarding the project, consultation and the decisions that have been made. In particular, Thames Water has a conflict of interest in relation to receiving and collating objections in relation to the proposals. It is also felt that Thames Water is not accountable and has a monopoly on the information provided.

24

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-42

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref 30.5.32 Objections, issues and concerns Thames Water has bowed to pressure groups, rather than taking a balanced view of consultation feedback. Respondent ID 7143, 7512, 8027, 8099 No. 4 Our response judgements. We do not agree that we have bowed to pressure groups and not taken a balanced view of consultation feedback. Both the Report on phase one consultation and this Report on phase two consultation demonstrate how we have carefully considered and where appropriate revised our proposals in light of feedback received. Our DCO application must be accompanied by a Consultation report explaining how we have responded to public consultation including an explanation of instances where no change to the scheme design is proposed in response to comments received through consultation. 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 have specifically developed the programme to allow adequate time to undertake public consultation and address the feedback received. Under the current programme, construction of the project would be in 2016, with advanced constructions works commencing in 2015. We believe that this programme allows sufficient time for public consultation, design revisions and determination of the DCO application. The project is not a fait accompli and the consultation is not a PR exercise. The Changes project information paper, which summarises 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 raised. Our purchase of the Chambers Wharf land was a prudent, responsible measure to make sure we are able to take forward whichever site proves most appropriate, following our detailed site selection process. Should we choose to not use Chambers Wharf, we would retain the option of selling the land.

30.5.33

Consultation is meaningless since it is a 'fait accompli' or a PR exercise. At Chambers Wharf the site has already been purchased.

13397LO, 7260LO, 8001LO, 8560LO, 8303LO, 8768LO, 8803LO, 8843LO, 9083LO, 9084LO, 9085LO, 9086LO, 9105LO, 9107LO, 8801LO, 9287LO, 9417LO, 9481LO, LR9271LO, 8795LO, 11002, 11004, 11263, 11385, 11404, 11492, 11502, 11578, 11580, 11587, 11591, 11624, 11635, 11662, 11708, 11738, 11749, 11775, 11818, 11840, 11848, 11879, 11988, 12003, 12027, 12059, 12073, 12090, 12107, 12116, 12132, 12169, 12320, 12372, 12581, 12693, 12713, 12735, 12758, 12794, 12796, 12819, 12825, 12828, 12866, 12985, 13028, 13074, 13093, 13099, 13102, 13103, 13124, 13156, 13158, 13161, 13162, 13183, 13197, 13199, 7003, 7015, 7102, 7104, 7137, 7141, 7148, 7170, 7190, 7224, 7241, 7249, 7265, 7271, 7301, 7321, 7456, 7462, 7475, 7499, 7513, 7551, 7557, 7558, 7571, 7618, 7620, 7631, 7692, 7700, 7761, 7792, 7824, 7828, 7842, 7843, 7852, 7865, 7869, 7882, 7883, 7914, 7968, 8037, 8108, 8111, 8209, 8211, 8212, 8235, 8297, 8299, 8300, 8405, 8459, 8567, 8643, 8690, 8693, 8726, 8749, 8750, 8753, 8755, 8760, 8769, 8772, 8786, 8805, 8856, 8869, 8885, 8888, 8903, 8953, 9137, 9467, LR9112, LR9116, LR9471 11027, 11181, 11256, 11260, 11289, 11306, 11409, 11529, 11580, 11594, 11662, 11747, 12058, 12524, 12540,

160

30.5.34

Thames Water has not taken feedback from phase one consultation into account.

32

An integral part of the pre-application process is the legal requirement that we consult with the communities and stakeholders in the vicinity of the tunnel route on the sites we intend to use in constructing and

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-43

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 12662, 12719, 12735, 12742, 12768, 12794, 12825, 12833, 12859, 12866, 13107, 13110, 13138, 7102, 7982, 8288, 9024 No. Our response operating the project and that we take account of all the comments received in response to consultation. We also need to comply with guidance issued by the Secretary of State in respect of the preapplication 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 the need to reduce the amount of sewage entering the River Thames, a storage and transfer tunnel as a solution to addressing CSO discharges, the route of the tunnel, our preferred construction sites and sought views on 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 from phase one consultation and further engineering design refinements identified by the project team. As set out in the Changes project information paper, it has led to a number of new preferred sites being identified at phase two consultation. The project is not politically motivated. For over a decade, we have been examining the most appropriate and proportionate solution to address the impacts of intermittent discharges of storm sewage into the River Thames, and how best to respond to the requirements of the UWWTD and the Water Framework Directive, which the UK is legally required to comply with. The work to investigate the best solution to this problem has been undertaken under both the previous and the current Government, both of which have demonstrated their support for the project through ministerial statements. The need to uphold human rights is of great importance to Thames Water. We recognise the need to balance private rights with the public objectives of the project. The protection of human rights will be achieved through the process of consultation and the need to obtain statutory consents to bring the proposals forward. If consent is granted for the project, then the law provides a scheme of compensation for those whose property is required for the project or suffer adverse effects from it. Prior to phase two consultation commencing, we agreed the publicity we would undertake with the potentially directly affected local authorities. This information was available in our SOCC, which was published in accordance with statutory requirements. As a result, 129,515 letters were sent out to the surrounding community notifying them of the consultation as well as advertisements being placed in the London Evening Standard and local newspapers and notices being put up around our preferred sites. The manner in which we publicised phase two consultation was compliant with statutory requirements and consistent with government guidance concerning pre-application

30.5.35

The project appears to be politically driven.

7285LO, 8807LO, 11419, 12073, 12375, 7012, 7137, 7170, 7186, 7241, 7343, 7475, 7491, 7513, 7797, 7916, 7920, 8117

18

30.5.36

We will take legal action; no allowance has been made for human rights.

8802LO, 12103, 7121

Consultation publicity 30.5.37 Exhibitions were badly publicised - letters should have been sent out. 8552LO, LR13496LO, 11586, 11617, 11816, 12023, 12265, 12671, 12703, 12802, 13139, 7177, 7402, 7415, 7626, 7689, 8537, 8856, 9494 10772, 11121, 11176, 11224, 11229, 11261, 11267, 11277, 11285, 11358, 11413, 11548, 11553, 11562, 11614, 11669, 11671, 11685, 11693, 11701, 11740, 11800, 11823, 11871, 11882, 11969, 11979, 11990, 11993, 12003, 19

30.5.38

Publicity for phase two consultation was poor.

98

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-44

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 12014, 12023, 12024, 12026, 12050, 12068, 12088, 12089, 12124, 12128, 12228, 12265, 12292, 12321, 12324, 12388, 12401, 12407, 12440, 12477, 12513, 12631, 12642, 12700, 12790, 12831, 12862, 12888, 12902, 12927, 12956, 12972, 12975, 12977, 12984, 13034, 13035, 13052, 13067, 13072, 13097, 13104, 13119, 13133, 13142, 13143, 13158, 13161, 13166, 13170, 13199, 13220, 13225, 13243, 7015, 7220, 7692, 7695, 7699, 7865, 7914, 8199, 8223, 8481, 8743, 8755, 8901, 9029 7167, 7466, 7680, 7768, 7892, 8241, 8505 No. Our response consultation. In addition, exhibitions were promoted through local newspaper advertising as well as local leaflets delivered to the surrounding community.

30.5.39

Local residents should have been given more notice regarding the commencement of consultation. More publicity regarding phase two consultation was needed.

30.5.40

(LR)LBTH, 8571LO, 8807LO, 12800, 7196, 26 7265, 7415, 7476, 7549, 7663, 7672, 7797, 7852, 7876, 7892, 7950, 7957, 8039, 8076, 8199, 8284, 8314, 8534, 8547, 8876, 8901 7768 1 We sought to notify the public of the consultation in good time, in accordance with statutory requirements and government guidance concerning pre-application consultation. We published our SOCC on 4 November 2011 and the consultation period ran from 4 November 2010 until 10 February 2012.We used many methods to publicise phase two consultation including advertisements in the London Evening Standard and local papers, on-site notices, and media briefings, which we agreed with the potentially directly affected local authorities prior to the consultation being undertaken. Prior to phase two consultation commencing, 172,162 letters were sent out across the consultation area which included residents within at least 250m of the boundary of each site and within a broad corridor along the tunnel route. The boundary was applied flexibly according to the scale and nature of the proposed works and taking into account the characteristics of the surrounding area. The letter set out what exhibitions were being held, where and when. We sent letters to those living at least 250m from the boundary of each site and within a broad corridor along the tunnel route. The boundary was applied flexibly according to the scale and nature of the proposed works and taking into account the characteristics of the surrounding area. Prior to phase two consultation commencing, we agreed the publicity we would undertake with the potentially directly affected local authorities, which included the consultation zone. It should be noted that direct notification via letter is only one of a range of publicity measures we used. We also included information on our proposals in this year's customer

30.5.41

More advance notice and publicity for exhibitions should have been given.

30.5.42 30.5.43

Consultation should have been targeted on a wider area, in particular for parks. More people should have been directly informed about phase two consultation; information should have been provided in water bills.

9147LO, 7237, 7978, 8295, 8402, 8537, 8652, 8809, 9082, 9494 LR13496LO, 7012, 7045, 7190, 7196, 7236, 7297, 7409, 7476, 7479, 7482, 7500, 7648, 7695, 8199, 8211, 8284, 8314, 8724, 8769, 8829, 8953, 9357

10 23

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-45

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. Our response bill leaflet. Refer to chapter 2 of the Main report on phase two consultation for further details of the publicity we carried out. We therefore consider that the area to which we sent consultation letters to was appropriate. Our approach to notifying individuals of our proposals was agreed with the potentially directly affected local authorities, prior to phase two consultation commencing. We undertook an extensive land referencing process to identify those that may be potentially directly affected by our proposals. All individuals and organisations identified were sent a letter informing how they may potentially be affected by our proposals. In addition, we also sent letters to those living at least 250m from the boundary of each site and within a broad corridor along the tunnel route. The boundary was applied flexibly according to the scale and nature of the proposed works and taking into account the characteristics of the surrounding area. Prior to phase two consultation commencing, we agreed the publicity we would undertake with the potentially directly affected local authorities. 129,515 letters were sent out on 3 and 4 November 2011 to the surrounding community notifying them of the consultation as well as advertisements being placed in the London Evening Standard and local newspapers and notices being put up around our preferred sites. In addition, exhibitions were promoted through local newspaper advertising as well as local leaflets hand delivered to the surrounding community. In relation to comments from the MMO, we sent notification letters and project documentation to two named contacts within the MMO at the start of phase two consultation. In January 2012, a further request for information was received from the MMO which we promptly responded to. The manner in which we publicised phase two consultation was compliant with statutory requirements and consistent with government guidance concerning pre-application consultation. Prior to phase two consultation commencing, we agreed our approach to this phase of consultation with the potentially directly affected local authorities. This included methods for publishing our consultation and disseminating information. In order to respond fully to the feedback form, it was advisable that respondents read some of the consultation material produced. Given that the information on the project is comprehensive and wide ranging it would not be cost-effective or environmentally friendly to send detailed information direct to such a vast number of residents. We therefore did not consider that it was appropriate to send out feedback forms to residents. However, where requests for copies of documents and/or feedback

30.5.44

Not every affected person has been directly consulted.

8410LO, 8563LO, 8571LO, 9436LO, 9495LO, 11051, 11110, 11174, 11261, 11474, 11566, 11569, 11631, 11860, 11894, 12024, 12041, 12079, 12180, 12273, 12320, 12642, 12782, 12791, 12801, 12835, 12927, 13133, 13158, 7146, 7196, 7215, 7422, 7532, 7698, 7767, 7789, 7914, 8026, 8037, 8047, 8111, 8199, 8223, 8739, 8856, 8888, 8902, 9354, 9409, 9494, LR13433, LR13439, LR13498, LR9471 (LR)MMO, LR13496LO, 7677, 7730, 7857,

55

30.5.45

Some people were only informed about phase two consultation very late in the process; this includes members of the public and the Marine Management Organisation (MMO).

30.5.46

Residents should have received a hard copy of the feedback form and other material.

7460LO, 8410LO, 9147LO, 8556LO, 8571LO, 12818, 13113, 13128, 13133, 13178, 7012, 7014, 7045, 7126, 7146, 7167, 7215, 7231, 7361, 7363, 7387, 7396, 7409, 7422, 7464, 7466, 7479, 7532, 7626, 7648, 7698, 7730, 7749, 7757, 7760, 7767, 7789, 7852, 7865, 7876, 7883, 7892, 7914, 8037, 8047, 8111, 8452,8683, 8737, 8761, 8856, 9354

52

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-46

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. Our response forms were made, these were responded to and dispatched within an appropriate timescale. The exhibition panels gave an overview of information relating the project and our proposals at sites. At each exhibition, more detailed site information papers, Project information papers and a copy of all technical documents produced for phase two consultation were available for inspection. Members of staff were also available to answer any questions. We held 57 exhibitions over 27 days throughout the duration of phase two consultation. In addition to the advertised exhibitions in our SOCC, we also advertised and held a further four exhibitions in response to feedback comments received during the consultation period. Visitors to exhibitions were able to discuss any of the preferred or shortlisted sites. We consider that we provided those with an interest in the project sufficient opportunity to attend an exhibition. In devising our exhibition timetable, we sought to provide exhibitions at a range of times and days during the week to ensure, as far as possible, that we provided consultees with an opportunity to attend an exhibition at a time and day most suitable for them. We held 57 exhibitions over 27 days, which ran during the week and at weekends. Seven exhibitions were held at the weekend, which we consider is sufficient. Exhibitions at each location were open during the day and into the evening. It was also possible to discuss comments on any of our sites at any of the exhibitions. We therefore provided consultees with various opportunities to discuss our proposals for the Thames Tunnel project. In selecting sites for exhibition venues we sought to balance a number of criteria including size, location and internal accessibility of the venue. All the exhibition venues we used were subject to a health and safety audit which included whether they contained provision for those with disabilities and the mobility impaired. Following comments made at phase one consultation, we re-assessed the locations of our exhibitions for phase two consultation and, where possible, used new locations which were more accessible and met our other selection criteria. At each exhibition, members of the project team from different disciplines including engineering, planning, property, environmental and communications were in attendance. This was to ensure that queries could be responded. All our staff attending exhibitions were given comprehensive training. This comprised of two elements: attendance on a day-long training course which explored how to engage with and respond to attendees at exhibitions; and before an exhibition at each location, all members of the team attending were given a dedicated briefing session which

Exhibitions 30.5.47 The quality of the exhibitions during phase two consultation was poor; in particular the exhibitions glossed over the impacts of the proposals. The exhibitions were badly organised. There were not enough exhibitions. 7156, 7627, 7702, 7801 4

30.5.48 30.5.49

13094, 7626, 7627, 9494 9147LO, 12220, 12797, 7129, 7680, 7833, 7939, 8184, 8727, 8809

4 10

30.5.50 30.5.51

Exhibition hours should have been longer. There should have been more weekend exhibitions.

7157, 7415, 7891 7157, 7832, 8864

3 3

30.5.52 30.5.53

Exhibition venues were poor. Exhibition venues were inaccessible; venues were too far away from the affected area or were difficult to find.

7789, 7797 12265, 13395, 7402, 7458, 7627, 7743, LR9471

2 7

30.5.54

More Thames Water staff should have attended the exhibitions.

7323, 8041

30.5.55

Thames Water staff members attending exhibitions were unapproachable.

9105LO, 9109LO, 7228, 7761, 7932, 8007, 8649, LR8422

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-47

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. Our response covered matters such as health and safety, and identified areas which might be of particular concern/interest to those attending the exhibition. Our website was redesigned following feedback during phase one consultation. We believe our website met best practice in terms of accessibility and usability. We have created a document library on our website, where the project documents produced to date including all the documents published for phase two consultation can be viewed and downloaded. The website also includes pages devoted to each of our preferred sites as well as information on the need for the project, our proposed solution and changes to our proposals since phase one consultation so that users can more easily find the information they are looking for. A tab was also created which advertised the location of our feedback form. Providing a balanced analysis in our consultation material was imperative and we do not agree that the material was biased in our favour. All the material presented contained necessary information for consultees to understand our proposals and make their own judgements. The website was built to accommodate as many different browsers and different computer set-ups as possible. Unfortunately, some people using older systems may have had some difficulty using the site. Where we were made aware of this, our staff either emailed documents or hard copies through the post for those people who could not access the relevant information through the website. We sought to design a feedback form which was simple and accessible to all. We held a focus group to discuss the feedback form when it was in draft form and this was a very helpful way for us to ask for direct comments from members of the general public, independent of the project team, on its layout and content. The comments we received were very helpful and we did make amendments to the forms and papers to reflect the constructive points made by the focus group. The main difference between phase one and phase two consultation is the relatively detailed and comprehensive nature of the information we prepared for people to be able to read before they respond to the phase two consultation. This has led to us designing the feedback form to capture comments on more specific details and assist respondents by linking questions to the relevant documentation (for example, online there are links to the relevant site information paper). The feedback form was split into three parts to reflect the different elements of the project on which we were seeking feedback. In addition, it was made clear on the website and on the hard copies of the feedback form that respondents only needed to respond to the questions of interest to them and did not need to provide responses to all 18 questions.

Consultation website 30.5.56 The consultation website was poor; in particular the videos on the website were biased. The consultation website was not userfriendly; it was not very easy to find the feedback form. There were problems with the operation and functionality of the consultation website; in particular there was an issue downloading the information documents associated with the questions within the feedback form. 8534, 8838 2

30.5.57

12987, 13148, 7271, 7327, 7339, 7744, 7747, 8026, 8206, 8779, 8816, 8876, 8901 7339, 7346, 7851, 7978, 8184, 8209, 8242, 8282, 8450, 8459, 8739, 8740, 8779, 8797, 8829, LR13498

13

30.5.58

16

Feedback form 30.5.59 The feedback form was difficult to complete; it should have been possible to see all the questions at the start. It was also not clear whether all forms of feedback would be accepted or only feedback submitted via the form. The feedback form was too complex and onerous to complete. It did not reflect best practice. 13397LO, 8410LO, 11008, 11011, 11080, 11081, 11236, 11415, 12131, 12145, 12371, 12689, 13133, 13141, 13229, 13395, 7012, 7015, 7236, 7349, 7623, 7692, 7809, 7990, 8047, 8109, 8629, 8708, 8890, 8977, 9007, 9395, 9461, 9475, 9494, LR13498 13397LO, 9107LO, 9417LO, 9481LO, 11012, 11027, 11038, 11332, 11543, 11677, 11727, 11866, 11873, 11886, 11976, 11977, 11978, 11996, 12037, 12085, 12095, 12145, 12286, 12579, 12670, 12689, 12706, 12714, 12757, 12780, 12796, 12805, 12851, 12965, 12990, 12997, 13058, 13067, 13089, 13097, 13172, 13218, 13228, 13229, 7121, 7377, 7403, 7434, 7438, 7478, 7491, 7628, 7639, 7663, 7757, 7767, 7878, 7892, 7920, 7933, 7990, 8109, 8138, 8190, 8300, 8314, 8329, 8652, 36

30.5.60

77

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-48

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID 8653, 8762, 8816, 8914, 9383, LR13428, LR13429, LR9341, 9422PET No. Our response It should also be noted that on the front page of the feedback form, it is clearly stated that if you require any help in filling out the feedback form, the customer centre can be contacted and details of the customer centre were provided. When attending exhibitions, our staff were also available to assist with completion of feedback forms. In relation to accepting feedback, where queries were made about the feedback form, we made it clear that feedback via emails and letters would also be accepted. This approach is reflected by our acceptance of 4,217 responses which took the form of alternative questionnaires. At the time of undertaking phase two consultation, our approach was consistent with IPC Guidance Note 1 which stated that it is necessary to seek feedback on detailed proposals and mitigation. It is also consistent with the guidance provided by the Department for Communities and Local Government on pre-application consultation. The feedback form was designed to capture comments on more specific details of the proposals during the construction and operational phases as well as the principle of the Thames Tunnel project using certain sites. We consider that the questions were sufficiently open to enable respondents to comment on all elements of our proposals. We also do not agree that the feedback form contained leading questions. The questions were designed to elicit information and views in a fair and balanced manner. The feedback form was designed so that respondents could select the questions they wished to respond to. As set out above, the feedback form was split into three parts and respondents could answer all or any part of each section. We do not therefore consider that if respondents only wanted to provide comments on a particular element of the proposal that it would have been time-consuming to do so. We ensured that our exhibitions were staffed by members of the project team who could answer questions and provide their expert opinions. We understand the concerns raised and we take those concerns very seriously.

30.5.61

The feedback form did not ask the right questions. It was repetitive and did not provide space to respond to other issues. It was also biased since it asked leading questions. The feedback form was too long and timeconsuming to complete; this may have put some people off from responding to the consultation.

7996LO, 8410LO, 8949LO, 9110LO, 7023, 7249, 7327, 7440, 7564, 7698, 7747, 7854, 8194, 8329, 8528, 8662, 8678, 8690, 8725, 8753, 8903, 8953, 9155, 9383, 9494, LR9277, LR9278 9417LO, 9481LO, 11011, 11236, 11415, 12233, 12670, 12904, 12934, 12990, 13058, 13097, 13228, 13395, 7102, 7121, 7167, 7236, 7403, 7434, 7476, 7478, 7502, 7527, 7549, 7797, 7968, 8027, 8109, 8314, 8545, 8817, 9186, 9461

27

30.5.62

34

Information requests 30.5.63 Thames Water staff members were unhelpful and unmoved by the potential effects of the project on local residents. 7996LO, 8887LO, 9092LO, 9093LO, 9105LO, LR9272LO, 11404, 11542, 7404, 7626, 7627, 7761, 7789, 7794, 7839, 7932, 8235, 8306, 8566, 8629, 8647, 8649, 8725, 8740, 8856, 8891, 8894, 9019, 9168, 9377, 9467, 9512 (LR)LBTH, 12957, 8614, 9467 32

30.5.64

Thames Water has not responded to enquiries.

We received a vast range of queries on the project and responded to these where we could by directing respondents to the detailed information available on our website and posting literature on request. We responded to correspondence requesting specific information within ten working days, if the enquiry was complex and required longer then we advised the individual or organisation that this would be the case. Prior to phase two consultation commencing, we agreed our approach to this phase of consultation with the potentially directly affected local authorities. This included a review of our approach to engaging with

Hard-to-reach groups 30.5.65 More effort should have been made to reach hard-to-reach groups including local mosques, Muslim centres, charities and (LR)LBTH, 9109LO, 13364, 13395, 7206, 9430, 9494, LR13500 8

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-49

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns organisations that use some of the sites (such as the parks) on a regular basis, and those for whom English is not their first language or who have limited English literacy. Respondent ID No. Our response hard-to-reach groups. As part of this process, we contacted community groups prior to phase two consultation commencing. These are listed in appendix I of the Main report on phase two consultation. With regard to those for whom English is not their first language, at the start of phase two consultation we published our SOCC in the London Evening Standard. The SOCC set out our approach to consultation including the fact that a language line service was available. We also sent 129,515 letters to the surrounding community notifying them of the consultation and placed site notices around each of our preferred sites. Details of the language line service were included with the letter, using a translation leaflet about the language line, and as part of the site notices. On the back of our literature we also provided a paragraph asking people to contact us if they wanted information in a different format and advising that we provided a translation service through the language line. Information regarding the availability of the language line is also contained on our website. At the start of phase two consultation we published our SOCC in the London Evening Standard. The SOCC set out our approach to consultation including the fact that a language line service was available. We consider that our approach is consistent with equalities legislation. In relation to publicising the language line, we also sent 129,515 letters to the surrounding community notifying people of the consultation, and placed site notices around each of our preferred sites. Details of the language line service were included with the letter, using a translation leaflet about the language line. On the back of our literature we also provided a paragraph asking people to contact us if they wanted information in a different format and advising that we provided a translation service through the language line. Information regarding the availability of the language line is also contained on our website. We therefore consider that we adequately publicised the availability of our translation services. Regarding the provision of translated material, the language line was considered an acceptable measure by the potentially directly affected local authorities. We undertake all our activities in conformity with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 in order to ensure equal treatment to all members of society, regardless of the protected characteristics of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. We are undertaking an equalities impact assessment to identify potential adverse, differential or positive impacts on equalities groups, and this will be submitted with our DCO application, as required by the National Policy Statement for Waste Water. We also took care during our consultation exercises to follow the advice in DCLG Guidance for Local Authorities on Translation for Publications, so a translation leaflet was included with the approximately 172,162 consultation letters which were sent out at

30.5.66

Thames Water should have considered people who speak different languages and provided translated material. Consultation fell foul of equalities legislation.

9147LO, 13364, 7990, 8076, 8452, 9494

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-50

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. Our response the start of the phase two consultations and a telephone language line was made available to provide assistance where required. In addition, in agreement with the local authority language information was included on site notices. We believe therefore that our approach is consistent with equalities legislation. We welcome the suggestions that have been received regarding the ways in which we should publicise and undertake further phases of consultation. In relation to undertaking our consultation over Christmas, this point was raised when we consulted on our consultation strategy with potentially directly affected local authorities. As a result, we extended our consultation from 12 weeks to 14 weeks. Regarding methods of publicity, we used a wide range of methods to publicise phase two consultation, including advertisements in the London Evening Standard and local papers, on-site notices and media briefings, which we agreed with the potentially directly affected local authorities prior to undertaking the consultation. Prior to phase two commencing, 172,162 letters were sent out across the consultation area which included residents within at least 250m of the boundary of each site and within a broad corridor along the tunnel route. The boundary was applied flexibly according to the scale and nature of the proposed works and taking into account the characteristics of the surrounding area. In relation to leafleting at stations and use of bill boards, these are not methods that we consider to be cost-effective. Our approach to consultation is in line with statutory requirements and we had regard to the Department for Communities and Local Government guidance on pre-application consultation. We welcome the comments received and should we need to undertake another phase of consultation, we will consider the appropriateness of the suggestions made. It should be noted that some of the suggestions for future engagement/ improvements made during phase two consultation may not be cost-effective. In relation to and possible changes to construction site layouts, our SOCC recognises that: we may need to amend our scheme after the commencement of our phase two consultation. Should this be necessary, we would consider on a site-by-site basis whether our changes would affect the nature of the comments received from the public at phase two consultation, and where appropriate undertake further targeted consultation. This would comprise public exhibitions and provision of project information, and would be for a period of not less than 28 days. We would also give 14 days notice through the publishing of local adverts and provision of information on our website. Chapter 8 of our CCS sets out our initial proposals in relation to communication with consultees once construction commences. We will assess in more detail the type of communications activity that will be most effective during construction and information on this will be

Future engagement/improvements 30.5.67 Suggestions for future engagement/improvements included: - Thames Water should avoid Christmas and other holidays. - Thames Water should use all types of media; they should also provide leaflets at stations and use bill board advertising. - Thames Water should hold public debates and make sure that the expertise of Thames Water's attendees at exhibitions is clear, - Thames Water should establish a panel that provides information to local residents etc. They should also have one-to-one meetings and open a permanently manned drop-in facility. - a link to the feedback form and relevant material should be sent those who have registered their interest on the website - Thames Water should undertake detailed consultation with affected sports groups/occupiers of buildings - especially on structural considerations. - since the construction layout is indicative, consultation should be undertaken on any changes to the layout to ensure that there are no further adverse impacts. - once construction has commenced, Thames Water should set up a long-term communications oversight which would provide regular updates through meetings and issue a schedule setting out what works will be undertaken. CoL, (LR)RBKC, 8801LO, 8807LO, 40 8949LO, 9392LO, 7237, 7280, 7287, 7323, 7347, 7444, 7704, 7708, 7865, 7980, 8115, 8188, 8225, 8442, 8537, 8548, 8565, 8646, 8683, 8722, 8759, 8814, 8816, 8899, 8901, 8904, 8944, 8977, 9377, 9383, LR13378, LR13473, LR13477, 9421PET

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-51

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. Our response published closer to the time. Prior to phase two consultation commencing, we agreed our approach to this phase of consultation and the pre-application consultation process up until submission of our DCO application with the potentially directly affected local authorities. In devising our strategy we also had regard to the Department for Communities and Local Government guidance, having ensured that our approach complies with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008. We therefore consider that the approach and process that we followed is robust and legally compliant. When we consulted with the potentially directly affected local authorities on our proposals we did not receive any comments regarding the cost of our proposals. We also needed to ensure that we meet the requirements of the Planning Act 2008. We therefore do not agree that the cost of the consultation is exorbitant. We documented all comments received at phase one consultation. These are set out in detail in the Supplementary report on phase one consultation. We can confirm that comments received from the London Borough of Tower Hamlets were taken into account. Further details are contained within our Local authority and stakeholder consultation feedback report on the draft SOCC and accompanying draft CCS which is available on request. We do not agree that our presentation of Carnwath Road Riverside as part of our interim engagement proposals was misleading. At the time that we undertook the engagement, we were still exploring alternatives to Barn Elms and had not made the decision to change our preferred site. Our site selection process is documented in the Site selection methodology paper and in relation to Carnwath Road Riverside, in appendix G of the Phase two scheme development report. There are wider drivers regarding the timing of this project than the designation of the Waste Water National Policy Statement, which only provides the framework for consideration of the DCO application once it has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for consideration. We are required by Government to deliver the project within a certain timescale and, in order to meet this, we must undertake work on the project now. Part of this work is pre-application consultation on our proposals. We therefore do not agree that it is premature to undertake consultation on the project. Further information on the need for the Thames Tunnel project is set out in the Needs report. We carefully considered the information we made available at our

Other concerns, issues and objections 30.5.68 Other concerns, issues and objections raised included: EH, GLA, (LR)LBTH, 13397LO, 8556LO, 9110LO, 9287LO, 9392LO, 9417LO, 9456LO, 9468LO, 9470LO, 9481LO, 11030, 11497, 11512, 11517, 11534, 11560, 11570, 11652, 11673, 11686, 11740, 11920, 11947, 11952, 11976, 11977, 12049, 12076, 12093, 12262, 12548, 12726, 12800, 12812, 12871, 12986, 13038, 13206, 7125, 7165, 7192, 7238, 7271, 7404, 7418, 7513, 7529, 7571, 7599, 7617, 7663, 7680, 7690, 7695, 7804, 7905, 8041, 8089, 8235, 8236, 8285, 8407, 8673, 8779, 8875, 8903, 8923, 9091, 9149, 9303, 9410, 9431, 9494, LR13381, LR13446, 78

- cost of undertaking consultation

considered exorbitant

- comments submitted at phase one

consultation not documented

- query whether the London Borough of

Tower Hamlets comments on the SOCC and CCS have been taken into account?

- consider it was misleading at interim

engagement to suggest Carnwath Road Riverside not the preferred site

- the need for the sewer as part of the

Waste Water National Policy Statement has yet to be made or determined and therefore the consultation is premature in this respect

- if the consultation period is not extended

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-52

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns the consultation will have been defective as a result of Thames Waters failure to provide information in time for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets to make an informed and intelligent response
- consultation phases so far has not

Respondent ID

No.

Our response phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. We therefore consider that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets has been provided with sufficient time to respond to the consultation.

adequately considered strategic questions

At both phase one and phase two consultations we sought feedback on the need to reduce the amount of sewage entering the River Thames, the tunnel as the right solution and our preferred tunnel route. We therefore consider that ample opportunity has been provided to consider strategic matters relating to the project. An SEA is required at the plan/programme level, not the project level. In this instance the plan/programme is the Waste Water National Policy Statement which was designated on 27 March 2012 and is accompanied by an Appraisal of sustainability that incorporates an SEA. We are therefore satisfied that an SEA has been carried out by the appropriate body. Where appropriate, requirements will be attached to the DCO which will require further details of the scheme to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. When these details are submitted, local residents will have the opportunity to submit comments for consideration as part of the determination of the application(s) by the local planning authority. Chapter 8 of our CCS sets out our initial proposals in relation to communication with consultees once construction commences. As we draw closer to the start of construction work, we will be providing more detail on our communication proposals and will take into account the suggestions received. We have assessed the likely significant effects that may arise as a result of the works as part of an environmental impact assessment. This assessment will set out measures necessary to mitigate any significant adverse effects that are identified. An Environmental statement, which records the findings of the environmental impact assessment, will accompany our DCO application. The initial environmental assessment work that has been carried out on the project is contained within the PEIR, which is available on our website. As part of the phase two consultation, we also sought feedback on the potential effects arising from our proposals and how the effects will be mitigated. Where possible, we will take feedback comments into account as we develop our proposals. Other suggestions, which may include betterment, will be subject to further discussions with the local planning authority. We carried consultation in accordance with our SOCC and met the requirements of the Planning Act 2008. We had regard to guidance

- failure to provide SEA

- no proposals have been put forward for

how local residents will be involved in the early planning of these works and a process for resolving contentious issues

- no mechanism or framework to discuss

potential local betterment projects for communities that will suffer from the construction programme

- further public consultation should be

undertaken prior to the DCO application

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-53

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns being submitted Respondent ID No. Our response produced by the Department of Communities and Local Government. In relation to further public consultation, our SOCC recognises that: we may need to amend our scheme after the commencement of our phase two consultation. Should this be necessary, we would consider on a site-by-site basis whether our changes would affect the nature of the comments received from the public at phase two consultation, and where appropriate undertake further targeted consultation. This would comprise public exhibitions and provision of project information, and would be for a period of not less than 28 days. We would also give 14 days notice through the publishing of local adverts and provision of information on our website. These are matters to be discussed with the Planning Inspectorate. You may find it helpful to review the information available on their website: (http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk).

- query how the consultation will be judged

by the Planning Inspectorate, or whether certain issues will be examined later


- respondents to Thames Water's phase

two consultation cannot, at this stage, know how their answers may be judged, or for what purposes. This must put the potential use of the consultation by the Planning Inspectorate in question. multiple copies of the notification letter were sent to the same address Under the Planning Act 2008 we are required to contact owner/occupiers about the project. This meant that properties sometimes received more than one letter as it was addressed to individuals. Prior to phase two consultation commencing, we consulted with potentially directly affected local authorities on the consultation boundary and there was broad agreement that the boundary was appropriate. We identified this as within at least 250m of each site, to be applied flexibly from the site boundary, depending on the scale and nature of the works proposed. We consider that the consultation boundary is sufficiently flexible to ensure that immediately affected properties will be notified. A notification letter which included an overview leaflet was therefore sent to all community consultees within at least 250m of the boundary of Carnwath Road Riverside. For those residents outside of the consultation boundary, we publicised our consultation in a range of other ways including advertisements in local papers and site notices were erected in the vicinity of the site. Refer to chapter 2 of the Main report on phase two consultation for further details. The information provided in the customer bill clearly sets out the impact of the project on future customer bills. In relation to responding to phase two consultation, the Planning Act 2008 only requires that we consult those in the vicinity of the project, which we did. Also, the water bill is issued over a number of months; some households will not receive the information on the project until after phase two consultation

- query what information has been provided to local residents who live within a two mile radius of Carnwath Road Riverside

- information provided with 2011/12 water bills was inadequate and ambiguous, with no reference to the enormous impact the project would have on future bills, or the opportunity for customers to have their say during the anticipated phase

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-54

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns two consultation - do not consider that a language line is suitable given the complex and very visually dependent nature of the consultation material Respondent ID No. Our response has closed. We therefore did not consider that it was appropriate to make reference to the consultation. The language line was considered acceptable by the potentially directly affected local authorities and more broadly is consistent with our approach regarding engaging with customers whose first language is not English. Our approach to consultation is also consistent with the Department for Communities and Local Government's Guidance for Local Authorities on Translation of Publications. We consider that we undertook 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. We are confident therefore that the information we provided is sufficient. We carefully considered the information we made available at our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees had sufficient information to respond to the consultation. The information was based on our preliminary transport assessment, which is still being developed, and we will be discussing the details further with Transport for London and the local authority to ensure that any significant transport effects are identified within the Environmental statement to be submitted as part of our DCO application. We published our initial response to the Selbourne Commission prior to phase two consultation commencing which stated that nothing in the report begins to suggest any alternative to the Thames Tunnel project which would meet the objectives set by the Environment Agency for the health of the river, in the time scale set by the Government. There are no costings and the principal recommended action is for further studies. Our full response to the Selbourne Commission is also now available on our website. 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. A significant body of information on the needs case was made available including Overflow and Options project information papers and the Needs report. We consider that these documents provide respondents with sufficient information to enable them to comment on whether the need for the project and the tunnel as the most appropriate solution has been demonstrated. We do not therefore agree that a full response to the Selbourne Commission was necessary. Details of our shortlisted sites are described and illustrated throughout the phase two consultation material, including the site information papers which provide which provide an overview of the details provided in the appendices of the Phase two scheme development report. Details of the Heckford Street shortlisted site can be found in the King Edward Memorial Park Foreshore site information paper and appendix

- query whether it is possible to make a meaningful consultation response on the basis of information provided since without detailed traffic modelling may need to raise further issues

- a full response to the Selbourne Commission is required to enable people to more fully respond to the consultation

- final plans for Heckford Street have not been provided which is contrary to the CCS since respondents have not been provided good access to information or been able to have meaningful say - local residents do not have the

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-55

30 Feedback on the consultation process Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID resources or expertise to counter the information being put forward by Thames Water, which has too much of a vested interest to properly listen to local people. - not possible to discuss the strategic case for tunnel without first choosing individual sites about which to comment - questions A and B of the feedback form were not used at phase one consultation, query why are is this information now required. No. Our response S of the Phase two scheme development report. Providing a balanced analysis in our consultation material was imperative. All the material presented contained necessary information for consultees to understand our proposals and make their own judgements. The feedback from was split into three parts. Part two concerned the strategic need for the project. It was possible for respondents to move straight to this part of the feedback form without having to answer any of the site specific questions. In relation to question A, in the Consultation report which will accompany our DCO application, we will have to state in what capacity respondents have provided comments. The categories in question A reflect the respondent groups which we need to report on in the Consultation report. With regard to question B, we considered that this would be useful for the project to understand which documents respondents were reading. It should be noted, in relation to question B, that responding to this question was optional.

30.6
30.6.1

Our view of the way forward


We have considered the comments received and are confident that we undertook a comprehensive consultation exercise. Following comments received at phase two consultation, we will undertake targeted consultation at Barn Elms, Putney Bridge Foreshore, Albert Embankment Foreshore and Victoria Embankment Foreshore. This is because the degree of change we are considering and the effect on the local community may affect the nature of the feedback from phase two consultation. Feedback comments received at phase two consultation relating to suggestions for future engagement and improvements to the consultation process will be taken into account for future consultation and engagement, subject to compliance with our SOCC, CCS and other considerations, such as cost.

30.6.2

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

30-56