supp report on p2 consultation - chapter 13 chelsea embankment foreshore

7/31/2019 Supp Report on P2 Consultation - Chapter 13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

1/55

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

Supplementary reporton phase twoconsultation

Chapter 13 Chelsea EmbankmentForeshore


2/55

13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

Thames Tunnel

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

List of contents

Page number

13 Chelsea Embankment Foreshore .............................................................. 13-113.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 13-113.2 Number of respondents ...................................................................... 13-213.3 Site selection ...................................................................................... 13-213.4 Alternative sites .................................................................................. 13-713.5 Management of construction works .................................................... 13-813.6 Permanent design and appearance .................................................. 13-3113.7 Management of operational effects .................................................. 13-3613.8 Our view of the way forward ............................................................. 13-49


3/55


List of tables

Page number

Table 13.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on ChelseaEmbankment Foreshore ................................................................. 13-2

Table 13.3.1 Views on whether Chelsea Embankment Foreshore should be ourpreferred site (Q2) .......................................................................... 13-3

Table 13.3.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to selection of

our preferred site ............................................................................ 13-3Table 13.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection of our

preferred site .................................................................................. 13-4Table 13.3.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites ...... 13-6Table 13.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to Chelsea Embankment Foreshore ... 13-7Table 13.4.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the availability and

identification of alternative sites ...................................................... 13-8Table 13.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site

information paper? (Q4a) ............................................................... 13-8Table 13.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key

issues? (Q4b) ................................................................................. 13-9Table 13.5.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the identified key

issues during construction 13 9


4/55


Table 13.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality andcontamination during construction ................................................ 13-15

Table 13.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment(aquatic) during construction ........................................................ 13-16

Table 13.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposedto address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) duringconstruction .................................................................................. 13-16

Table 13.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment

(terrestrial) during construction ..................................................... 13-17Table 13.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed

to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) duringconstruction .................................................................................. 13-18

Table 13.5.18 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to noise and vibrationduring construction ....................................................................... 13-19

Table 13.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibrationduring construction ....................................................................... 13-19

Table 13.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposedto address the effects of noise and vibration during construction . 13-21

Table 13.5.21 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to open space andrecreation during construction ...................................................... 13-21

Table 13.5.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and

recreation d ring constr ction 13 21


5/55


Table 13.6.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the permanent designand appearance of the site ........................................................... 13-32

Table 13.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent designand appearance of the site ........................................................... 13-33

Table 13.6.5 Design suggestions ...................................................................... 13-34Table 13.7.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site

information paper? (Q7a) ............................................................. 13-36Table 13.7.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key

issues? (Q7b) ............................................................................... 13-37Table 13.7.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the measures

proposed to address the key issues during operation .................. 13-38Table 13.7.4 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to air quality and odour

during operation ........................................................................... 13-38Table 13.7.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour

during operation ........................................................................... 13-38Table 13.7.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed

to address the effects of air quality and odour during operation ... 13-39Table 13.7.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment

during operation ........................................................................... 13-40Table 13.7.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment

(aq atic) d ring operation 13 41


6/55


Table 13.7.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visualeffects during operation ................................................................ 13-46

Table 13.7.19 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to transport and accessduring operation ........................................................................... 13-47

Table 13.7.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and accessduring operation ........................................................................... 13-47

Table 13.7.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposedto address the effects of transport and access during operation .. 13-48

Table 13.7.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood riskduring operation ........................................................................... 13-48

Table 13.7.23 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposedto address the effects on water and flood risk during operation ... 13-49


7/55


Supplementary report on phase two consultation 13-1


13.1 Introduction

13.1.1 This chapter covers the feedback comments received during phase two consultation regarding our preferred site Chelsea Embankment Foreshore (opposite Bull Ring Gate). This sitewould be used to intercept the existing local combined sewer overflow (CSO), known as the Ranelagh CSO and to construct a connection to the northern Low Level Sewer No.1 to divertflows into the main tunnel. At phase one consultation, Chelsea Embankment Foreshore (west of Chelsea Bridge) was presented as our preferred site to intercept the Ranelagh CSO.However, following reassessment of potential sites, Chelsea Bridge (opposite Bull Ring Gate) was identified as our pre ferred site to intercept the Ranelagh CSO and presented at phase

two consultation. For further information regarding the proposals for this site at phase two consultation, refer to the Chelsea Embankment Foreshore site information paper. As part of ourphase two consultation we identified two shor tlisted sites to intercept the Ranelagh CSO. The shortlisted sites are:

Chelsea Embankment Foreshore (west of Chelsea Bridge) (site 1)

Ranelagh Gardens (site 2).

13.1.2 Where feedback comments were received on any of these shortlisted sites, they are presented in section 13.2 (site selection) and section 13.3 (alternative sites) of this chapter.

Structure of this chapter

13.1.3 This chapter is organised as listed below, which reflects the structure of the phase two consultation feedback form:

section 13.2 Number of respondents

section 13.3 Site selection

section 13.4 Alternative sites

section 13.5 Management of construction works

section 13.6 Permanent design and appearance

section 13.7 Management of operational effects

section 19.8 Our view of the way forward.

13.1.4 In sections 13.3 to 13.7 we present details of the feedback comments raised, the types and total number of respondents, and our response to feedback comments. Where specificobjections, issues or concerns have been raised, the final column of the tables indicates whether, in response to the feedback received:

C we are considering or proposing change or additional mitigation1

to that set out in our phase two consultation material

N we do not propose to amend our proposals.

13.1.5 A full list of the phase two consultation material is set out in Annex A to this report.

13.1.6 Where a response contains a reference to our website, go towww.thamestunnelconsultation.co.ukfor further information, or to access the documents referenced.

1Mitigation here refers to a wide range of measures set out in our phase two consultation proposals including for example, the Air management planand other documents as well as those mitigation measures set out in the PEIR.
http://www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk/http://www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk/http://www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk/http://www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk/


8/55



13.2 Number of respondents

13.2.1 A total of 42 respondents provided feedback comments on Chelsea Embankment Foreshore, of which eight were received after the close of phase two consultation. Table 13.2.1 sets outthe different groups who provided feedback for this site.

Table 13.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

Statutory consultees Local authorities Landowners Community consultees Petitions

6 respondents

- Design Council CABE (CABE)- Consumer Council for Water (CCW)

- English Heritage (EH)

- Environment Agency (EA)

- Greater London Authority (GLA)

- Port of London Authority (PLA)

1 respondent

- Royal Borough of Kensingtonand Chelsea (RBKC)1 respondent 34 respondents 0 petitions

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

13.3 Site selection

13.3.1 A series of sites is required in order to build and operate the Thames Tunnel project. To determine our preferred scheme, we are undertaking a site selection process, using amethodology that was adopted after consultation with the relevant local authorities and statutory consultees. For further information on our methodology and process, refer to:

Site selection project information paper, which sets out the process we followed to find and select our preferred sites

Site selection methodology paper, which details the methodology used to select construction sites along the route of the main tunnel

Site selection background technical paper, which provides supporting technical information to the Site selection methodology papersuch as the engineering requirements for the sizeof construction sites.

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

Site information papers,which provide summary information on each of our preferred sites, including the reasons for selecting them

Phase two scheme development report, which describes how our proposals for the Thames Tunnel project have evolved and provides a detailed account of the site selection processfor each of the preferred sites.

13.3.3 In this section, we set out the feedback comments received in relation to the selection of Chelsea Embankment Foreshore as our preferred site, together with our responses. Ourresponses provide relevant details of the site selection process and its findings up to phase two consultation. Where appropriate we have also identified further work that we haveundertaken in relation to our preferred site, such as the preparation of our Preliminary environmental information report(PEIR). As part of the project design development process, wecontinue to assess how the effects arising from the proposed development can be addressed. The output of our assessment up to phase two consultation is contained in appendix K of theDesign development reportand our PEIR(volume 16).

13.3.4 Where respondents commented on matters relating to management of construction works, permanent design and appearance or the management of operational effects at ChelseaEmbankment Foreshore, these comments are reported in sections 13.5 to 13.7.

Number of respondents

13.3.5 During phase two consultation, respondents were asked to comment on the decision to select Chelsea Embankment Foreshore as the preferred site to intercept the Ranelagh CSO (seequestion 2 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). Table 13.3.1 sets out details of the different groups whoresponded and were asked to select supportive, opposed/concerned or dont know/unsure. Tables 13.3.2 and 13.3.3 then detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site.It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments selected supportive, opposed/concerned or dont know/unsure.


9/55



Table 13.3.1 Views on whether Chelsea Embankment Foreshore should be our preferred site (Q2)

Respondent type Number of respondents

Total Supportive Opposed/concerned Dont know/unsure

Statutory consultees 1 1

- EA

Local authorities 0

Landowners 0

Community consultees 22 11 10 1

Petitions 0

Total 23 11 11 1

Supportive and neutral comments in relation to our preferred site

Table 13.3.2 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to selection of our preferred site

Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID No. Our response

13.3.6 Support the use of the preferred site. 9299, LR9447 2 Your support is noted and welcomed.

13.3.7 The preferred site is more suitable than thesite put forward at phase one consultationbecause the drop shaft and interceptionchamber foreshore projections have beencombined into a single structure and thediameter of the shaft has also beenreduced, thereby reducing the overallfootprint of the structure.

RBKC 1

13.3.8 The preferred site is more suitable than anyof the shortlisted sites - specificallyRanelagh Gardens (site 2).

8612 1

13.3.9 Support for changes to the extent of thepreferred site since phase one consultation.

7807 1 Noted. This is the conclusion of our site selection process.

13.3.10 Qualified support for the preferred siteincluded:

- the site is generally in the right location,although the structure in the River

Thames has not been designed to takeaccount of navigational risk

GLA, PLA, 9078 3 Refer to paragraph 13.5.21, for our response to navigational riskassessment.

- due to effect on A3212 In relation to the effect on A3212, we are proposing to use barges tobring in and take away material used to fill the cofferdam. This isexpected to reduce the number of lorry visits to/from this site byapproximately 45 per cent. We are reviewing the proposed routes thatconstruction traffic would use as part of our transport assessment. If thetransport assessment identifies any likely significant effects arising fromcongestion we will develop mitigation measures to minimise the effectsof any disruption. We are also developing a Code of construction


10/55




practice(CoCP) (a draft was provided as part of our phase twoconsultation), which will include a Traffic management planto ensurethat construction traffic is carefully controlled to minimise any likelysignificant effects on the road network including access to the local area,as well as setting out construction traffic routes, site access/egresspoints, signage and monitoring procedures.

- the PLA has no in principle objections tothe use of this site in terms ofnavigational safety.

Your comment is noted.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to our preferred site

Table 13.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection of our preferred site

Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. Our response

13.3.11 Object to the use of this preferred site; theEA is generally opposed in principle to theuse of any foreshore sites along the tidalThames as this is likely to lead to a numberof detrimental effects to flood riskmanagement, biodiversity and recreation.However, we recognise the environmentalbenefits the Thames Tunnel project willdeliver and there is a need to develop asnear to the river as possible.

EA, EH 2 The sites that we consulted on at phase two consultation have beenidentified through an extensive site selection process (see our Siteselection methodology paperon our website). We consulted on andagreed the methodology with key stakeholders including potentiallydirectly affected local authorities and utilised a multidisciplinaryapproach to assess potential CSO sites against engineering, planning,environmental, property and community considerations.

We recognise that, given the locations where we are seeking to

construct and operate the tunnel, many of the shortlisted sites areconstrained. However, based on our assessment we consider that, onbalance, Chelsea Embankment Foreshore is the most suitable site.

This is because it would have less effect on the foreshore of the RiverThames than our preferred site at phase one consultation because it isonly necessary to build one structure. There is also likely to be lesseffect on local residential areas. The location of the site also offers theopportunity to create a new area of public space that complements thesetting of the historic environment and views along the River Thamesthan the alternatives considered.

While we have considered inland sites, in this case, we do not considerthat Ranelagh Gardens is more suitable hence our preference for aforeshore site. We consider that Ranelagh Gardens is less suitablebecause it would have a greater effect on the two Grade II registeredparks and gardens, the Royal Hospital Chelsea and Ranelagh Gardens,

both of which have significant heritage value as well as providing animportant resource for the local community for events such as theChelsea Flower Show. The site is also located closer to residentialproperties.

For further details on the results of the site selection process includingour assessment of shortlisted sites, refer to appendix K of the Phase twoscheme development report. For further details of how we propose toaddress concerns relating to the likely significant transport effects of ourproposals refer to table 13.5.28.

13.3.12 Other concerns, issues and objectionsraised included that the preferred site is notthe optimal solution in particular due to thetransport effects of the proposals.

GLA 1


11/55




13.3.13 Ranelagh Gardens (site 2) is more suitablesince it presents a better alternative in termsof impact on the historic environment.

EH 1 Our re-assessment of sites prior to phase two consultation and ourreview of phase two consultation comments does not support the use ofRanelagh Gardens as our preferred site. Ranelagh Gardens is lesssuitable because it would have a greater effect on surrounding heritageassets including the two Grade II registered parks and gardens and theRoyal Hospital Chelsea both of which have significant heritage value aswell as providing an important resource for the local community forevents such as the Chelsea Flower Show. The site is also located closer

to residential properties.For further details on the results of the site selection process includingour assessment of shortlisted sites, refer to appendix J of the Phase twoscheme development report.

13.3.14 Site selection should not use sites within theRiver Thames foreshore.

EA 1 CSOs need to be intercepted along the line of the existing sewer thatflows into the River Thames. CSO interception sites need to be as closeto the line of the sewer as practicable so there are few options and amore localised approach is required. In the case of the Ranelagh CSO,the overflow point is located within our proposed site and as explained inour response to paragraph 13.3.11, we consider that any land-basedsites identified through our site selection process are less suitable.

13.3.15 Site selection should avoid sites inresidential and/or densely populated areas.

7568 1 CSOs need to be intercepted along the line of the existing sewer thatflows into the River Thames. CSO interception sites need to be as closeto the line of the sewer as practicable so there are few options and a

more localised approach is required. We would note that the preferredsite at Chelsea Embankment Foreshore is not surrounded by residentialproperties, the nearest residential building is located approximately100m to the west of the site.

13.3.16 The cost of using the site is too high/notcost-effective.

8402 1 Cost is one of the considerations that inform site assessments, but it isnot an overriding factor that outweighs all other engineering, planning,environmental, community, property and wider economic considerations.High acquisition costs alone would not outweigh positive considerationssuch as use of brownfield land, conformity with planning policy, andability to construct/operate the proposed works on the site. Equally, alow value site would not result in a site becoming our preferred site, ifthere were significant planning, environmental or community concernsassociated with its use. In determining our preferred site, a balanced

judgement is therefore made, taking planning, environment, engineering,property and community considerations into account.

13.3.17 The scale of effects on the local area andcommunity resulting from the selection ofthis site is unacceptable/has not beenproperly considered.

8402 1 Our site selection process has had regard to possible likely significanteffects on the local area and community, and the environmental impactassessment process will undertake further assessment and recommendany necessary mitigation measures.

The environment and community assessments undertaken as part ofsite selection considered the number and nature of sensitive receptorsas well as possible likely significant effects from traffic and constructionworks including noise, air quality and visual impact. We also consideredlikely significant effects on employment uses and possible conflict with


12/55




planning policy that seeks to protect local amenity. Accordingly, weconsider that the scale of possible likely significant effects on the localarea and community has been adequately considered.

For further details on the results of the site selection process includingour assessment of shortlisted sites, refer to appendix J of the Phase twoscheme development report.

13.3.18 Disagree with/not commenting on siteselection due to wider objections to theproposed solution and/or the need for theproject.

7568 1 Refer to paragraph 2.2.32 for our response to this feedback comment.

13.3.19 Site selection should avoid sites adjacent toor containing heritage assets.

EH 1 The location of CSO sites is constrained by the location of the existingcombined sewers, because the interception chambers have to be builton the existing sewers. The search area for the CSO sites is thereforelocalised around the vicinity of the existing sewer. As set out in the Siteselection methodology paper, sites have not been identified which wouldbe located in London's World Heritage sites. This is in recognition of thehistoric importance of these sites. Given that we had a limited searcharea to identify a suitable CSO site, we did not consider it wasappropriate to exclude sites based on whether they included or wereadjacent to other designated heritage assets when compiling our longlistof sites. As part of the assessment undertaken the effect of ourproposals of heritage designations was considered.

In relation to intercepting the Ranelagh CSO and connecting to thenorthern Low Level Sewer No.1, all of the shortlisted sites are adjacentto heritage assets and have the potential to affect their setting. Based onour assessment, we consider that our preferred site minimises the effecton heritage assets and once the permanent works have beenconstructed, provides an opportunity to complement and enhance thesetting of the existing heritage assets.

13.3.20 Site selection should avoid greenfield sitesand open space.

9055 1 Whether a site is brownfield or greenfield/open space was taken intoaccount along with other considerations as set out in the Site selectionmethodology paper.

Shortlisted sites

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to shortlisted sites

13.3.21 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to shortlisted sites,

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites

Table 13.3.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to shortlisted sites


13.3.22 Shortlisted site Ranelagh Gardens (site 2) isunsuitable for the proposed use(s) because:

- the Gardens have a high heritage andamenity value, and are used for big events

- the site is closer to residents; use of the

GLA, RBKC, 7807 3 Based on our assessment, we consider that while Ranelagh Gardens ispotentially suitable as a CSO site, in comparison to our preferred site itis a less suitable site. This is because it would have a greater effect onsurrounding heritage assets including the two Grade II registered parksand gardens and the Royal Hospital Chelsea, both of which have


13/55




site would require hoarding in excess of2.4m to protect the upper floors ofneighbouring dwellings from noise

- delivery by barge would not be possible- it would be difficult to manage construction

traffic.

significant heritage value as well as providing an important resource forthe local community for events such as the Chelsea Flower Show. Thesite is also located closer to residential properties.

For further details on the results of the site selection process, refer toappendix K of the Phase two scheme development report.

13.3.23 Objection to the inclusion or referencing ofRanelagh Gardens (shortlisted site 2) as a

possible alternative to the preferred site.

9299 1

13.4 Alternative sites

13.4.1 During phase two consultation, respondents were invited to suggest alternative sites that they thought should be used to intercept the Ranelagh CSO instead of Chelsea EmbankmentForeshore (see question 3 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The following sites were put forward aspossible alternatives:

Table 13.4.1 Suggested alternative sites to Chelsea Embankment Foreshore

Ref Alternative site suggestions Reasons Respondent ID No. Our response

Other sites

13.4.2 Royal Hospital Chelseagrounds.

Reduced impact of permanent workson the river regime and navigation.

8853 1 Although not shortlisted at phase two consultation, we have consideredsites within the grounds of the Royal Hospital Chelsea to interceptRanelagh CSO and control the northern Low Level Sewer. These sites

were considered less suitable than our preferred site due to engineeringconstraints and potential likely significant effects on environment andlocal community. For further details on the results of the site selectionprocess, refer to appendix K of the Phase two scheme developmentreport.

13.4.3 South of the River Thames. More practical/logical site. 7212 1 Sites have been selected on the basis of needing to intercept existingCSOs. CSOs are in fixed locations and the site to intercept the CSOneeds to be on the line of, or in close proximity to, the sewer. Thesuggested alternative sites are considered too far away from RanelaghCSO northern Low Level Sewer, which are located to the north of theRiver Thames and therefore are not suitable as a CSO interception site.

13.4.4 Battersea Park. The 2 outlets from the sewers couldbe linked by a longer tunnel into themain tunnel. Site is more suitablebecause it reduces risk of riverscouring, as any protection is likely tosilt up in this site, avoids any trafficrestrictions/increased on theEmbankment and surrounding roads

for the duration of the constructionworks, and is within a less residentialarea so would cause less disruption.

8089, 8814 2

13.4.5 Respondents also made the following comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites:


14/55



Supportive and neutral feedback comments

Table 13.4.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites


13.4.6 No alternative site is available; ThamesWater has done its best to survey alternativesites.

7404 1 Your support is welcomed and noted.

13.4.7 Not an expert/not qualified/do not have theknowledge to comment.

8814 1 The purpose of consultation is to explore as fully as possible what thosewith an interest in the project think about our proposals. We will haveregard to comments received from both technical and non-technicalconsultees.

Objections, issues and concerns

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

13.5 Management of construction works

13.5.1 This section sets out feedback comments received during phase two consultation in relation to the management of construction works at Chelsea Embankment Foreshore. This includesthe identification of site specific issues affecting construction activities and proposals for addressing these issues.

13.5.2 During phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with Chelsea Embankment Foreshore duringconstruction and the ways to address these issues (see questions 4a and 4b of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase twoconsultation). The first part of question 4a and 4b asked respondents to select agree, disagree or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the resultsare set out in tables 13.5.1 and 13.5.2. Tables 13.5.3 to 13.5.29 detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who providedfeedback comments confirmed whether the right issues and the ways to address those issues had been identified.

Table 13.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q4a)


Total Yes No Dont know/unsure

Statutory consultees 0

Local authorities 0

Landowners 0


Petitions 0

Total 17 8 5 4


15/55



Table 13.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q4b)


Total Yes No Dont know/unsure

Statutory consultees 0

Local authorities 0

Landowners 0


Petitions 0

Total 18 6 8 4

13.5.3 The following sections set out the feedback comments received from respondents in connection to the identification of key issues associated with Chelsea Embankment Foreshore duringconstruction and our proposals to address these issues. Feedback comments are organised under common themes. The themes are:

General themes:

General feedback comments on key issues

General feedback comments measures to address the key issues

Topic based themes

Air quality and odour

Construction working hours and programme

Construction site design and layout

Historic environment

Land quality and contamination

Lighting

Natural environment (aquatic)

Natural environment (terrestrial)

Noise and vibration

Open space and recreation

Planning and development

Socio-economic

Structures and utilities

Townscape and visual

Transport and access

Water and flood risk

General feedback comments on the identified key issues

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the identified key issuesTable 13.5.3 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the identified key issues during construction


13.5.4 While key issues have been identified, thebenefits associated with the preferred siteshave not been highlighted.

7566 1 Your comment is noted.


16/55



Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues

Table 13.5.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the identified key issues during construction

Ref Objections, issues and concerns Respondent ID No. Our response Outcome

13.5.5 Identification and description of potentialeffects and key issues is too vague/general/not satisfactorily explained.

8402 1 The key issues in the Chelsea Embankment Foreshore siteinformation paperare intended to provide a broad overviewof potential effects and key issues associated with the siteduring construction. It is not, however, an exhaustive list. Amore detailed description of likely significant effects and the

methodology through which they have been identified is andassessed is provided in other technical reports, including thePEIR, (volume 16), appendix K of the Design developmentreport, appendix K of the Phase two scheme developmentreportand site selection methodology and backgroundpapers. We are undertaking an environmental impactassessment, which will include a comprehensiveassessment of likely significant effects arising from theproposals. The findings of the assessment, together withany recommendations for mitigation, will be available as partof the Environmental statementthat will be submitted withour Development Consent Order application.

N

13.5.6 There are more key issues than thoseidentified in the site information paper.

8402 1 N

General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues

13.5.7 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to general comments on the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues

Table 13.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction


13.5.8 Construction impacts must be minimised atevery stage of construction.

GLA 1 We are developing a CoCPwhich will set out how we wouldmanage our construction sites to minimise disruption tonearby communities. Measures proposed to addresspotential likely significant effects are being further developedand considered as part of the environmental impactassessment. The findings of the assessment, together withany recommendations for mitigation, will be available as partof the Environmental statementthat will be submitted withour DCO application.

N

Air quality and odour

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air quality and odour

Table 13.5.6 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to air quality and odour during construction


13.5.9 Mitigation proposed to address air qualityand odour issues is satisfactory.

RBKC 1 Your comments are noted and welcomed.


17/55



Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour

Table 13.5.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during construction


13.5.10 Dust and dirt arising from constructionactivities.

7457, 8089, 8612 3 Our Managing construction project information paperanddraft CoCPsets out the dust control measures and dustmonitoring equipment that would be put in place tominimise likely significant effects of dust from constructionactivities. Our draft CoCPconfirms that an Air

management planwill be prepared and implemented foreach site to control dust emissions, and proposedtechniques would be in line with best practice guidelines.Our preliminary assessment of likely significant air qualityeffects as reported in our PEIR(volume 16, section 4) didnot identify any significant effects at residential or othersensitive receptors (such as schools) near this site.Further assessment of likely significant effects on nearbyproperties will be undertaken as part of our on-goingenvironmental impact assessment work and this will bereported in the Environmental statementto be submittedwith our DCO application.

N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour

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

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour

Table 13.5.8 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction


13.5.12 The GLA and London Council's BestPractice Guidance (BPG) The control ofdust and emissions from construction anddemolitionshould be implemented.

GLA 1 We can confirm that The control of dust and emissions fromconstruction and demolition-Best Practice Guidance 2008has been taken into account in developing our proposals forthis site and details are set out in our draft CoCP.

N

Construction working hours and programme

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction working hours and programme

13.5.13 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to construction working hours and programme.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme

Table 13.5.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction working hours and programme


13.5.14 The construction programme is unclear. 8402 1 The overall project programme is set out in the Timingproject information paper. Details relating to the site specificconstruction programme for this site are set out in theChelsea Embankment Foreshore site information paper,which indicates construction works lasting for a period ofapproximately four years.

N


18/55




13.5.15 The construction programme is too long/concerned about the duration ofconstruction.

8047 1 The programming of works at all sites would be configuredto minimise the duration of works and associated disruptionto the local area where possible. The length of theconstruction period as set out in the consultation documentswas the period assessed in the PEIR(volume 16) that workswould be underway and it is hoped that in many cases therewould be periods during which there would be no activity orless intensive activity on some sites.

N

13.5.16 Other construction programme issue: thevolume of tunnel related constructionundertaken over the same seven yearperiod at several sites in the same area.

8047 1 Your comments are noted. Our Environmental statementwillassess the effects of the scheme at each site andcumulatively in line with requirements set out in theInfrastructurePlanning (Environmental Impact Assessment)Regulations.2009.

N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address construction working hours and programme

13.5.17 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address construction working hours and programme.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address construction working hours and programme

13.5.18 No objective, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address construction working hours and programme.

Construction site design and layout

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to construction site design and layout

13.5.19 No supportive or neutral comments were received in relation to construction site design and layout.Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout

Table 13.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout


13.5.20 Extent of construction site, which includessites on either side of Chelsea Embankment(A3212).

GLA 1 The construction site layout has been developed to minimiseits site area. The existing infrastructure to which we need toundertake work comprising the CSO, Northern Low LevelSewer No.1 and utilities are located on both sides ofChelsea Embankment (A3212).

N

13.5.21 Location/existence of cofferdam and effectson navigational risk.

8853 1 We will carry out a Navigational risk assessmentfor this site,which will form part of our DCO application. Our temporarycofferdam is more than 30m from the navigational channel,so we believe that the effects of the works on navigation

would be small. We will discuss the findings with the PLA.Preliminary discussions with the PLA have also informed thedesign of the site. Suitable infrastructure would beconstructed to allow the use of barges at the site.

N

13.5.22 Existence and/or size of structure(s) within

the foreshore of the River Thames.

8853 1 N

Suggestions for construction site design and layout

13.5.23 No suggestions were received in relation to construction site design and layout.


19/55



Historic environment

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the historic environment

13.5.24 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the historic environment during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment

Table 13.5.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environment during construction


13.5.25 It is not clear what the scale of the effect on

the historic environment will be; theassessment to date is very vague.

RBKC 1 Our PEIR(volume 16, section 7), which was available at

phase two consultation contains a preliminary assessmentof the impact of our proposals on the historic environment inline with a methodology agreed with the RBKC and otherkey stakeholders. An assessment of the likel y significanteffects on the historic environment is being completed aspart of our environmental impact assessment. We areconsulting with English Heritage as part of this process. Thefindings of the assessment, together with anyrecommendations for mitigation, will be available as part ofthe Environmental statementthat will be submitted with ourDCO application.

N

13.5.26 Effect on the conservation area. GLA, 8612 2 Our proposal for this site includes works in the ThamesConservation Area and the Royal Hospital ConservationArea and partially within Ranelagh Gardens a Grade II

registered park and garden. We recognise the historiccharacter of this area, and in developing our designproposals for the site since phase one we have consideredthe historic context of this site and developed our proposalsto respect this character.

An assessment of the likely significanteffects on the historicenvironment is being completed as part of our environmentalimpact assessment. We are consulting with English Heritageas part of this process. The findings of the assessment,together with any recommendations for mitigation, will beavailable as part of the Environmental statementthat will besubmitted with our DCO application.

Our draft CoCP(provided at phase two consultation)identifies that works to or in the vicinity of listed buildingswould be undertaken in accordance with all required

consents and licences and that protection measures wouldbe put in place at the start of the works. We would alsonotify English Heritage and the local planning authority priorto undertaking works.

N

13.5.27 Effect on adjacent/nearby conservationareas (Cheyne, Thames).

8612 1 N

13.5.28 Effect on listed building(s) or structuresincluding Royal Hospital Chelsea (Grade I),Bull Ring Gates (Grade II), embankmentwall (Grade II), sewer ventilation column(Grade II), Chelsea Bridge (Grade II).

GLA, 8612 2 The site is in proximity to a number of listed buildingincluding Royal Hospital Chelsea (Grade I), Bull Ring Gates(Grade II), embankment wall (Grade II), sewer ventilationcolumn (Grade II), Chelsea Bridge (Grade II). Ourpreliminary assessment has identified that there is amoderate adverse effect on the parapet of the existing river

N


20/55




wall which would be locally dismantled during constructionworks.

An assessment of the likely significanteffects on the historicenvironment is being completed as part of our environmentalimpact assessment. We are consulting with English Heritageas part of this process. The findings of the assessment,together with any recommendations for mitigation, will beavailable as part of the Environmental statementthat will be

submitted with our DCO application.We do not propose to undertake works which would affect alisted building or structure at this site. In the event we arerequired to carry out works, we would do so in accordancewith our CoCP, which identifies that works to or in thevicinity of listed buildings would be undertaken inaccordance with all required consents and licences and thatprotection measures would be put in place at the start of theworks. We would also notify English Heritage and the localplanning authority prior to undertaking works.

13.5.29 Effect of construction activities onarchaeology.

EH 1 Our phase two consultation material included a preliminaryassessment of likely significant archaeological effects asdetailed in our PEIR (volume 16, section 7). Our preliminaryassessment identified the site as a potential location forpalaeo-environmental material and for post-medieval timber

structures and remains. There is also high potential for re-deposited prehistoric artefacts. The desk-based study of thesite suggests that no buried heritage assets of very highsignificance are anticipated that might merit a mitigationstrategy of permanent preservation in situ. An assessmentof the likely significanteffects on the historic environment isbeing completed as part of our environmental impactassessment. We are consulting with English Heritage aspart of this process. The findings of the assessment,together with any recommendations for mitigation, will beavailable as part of the Environmental statementthat will besubmitted with our DCO application.

Our draft CoCPsets out a range of measures that would beadopted by our contractor in respect of archaeology and afull assessment of the likely significant effects of the scheme

on the historic environment, together with anyrecommendations for mitigation, will be set out in theEnvironmental statementthat will be submitted with ourDCO application. As set out in our draft CoCPwe would putin place procedures for ensuring construction works areappropriately monitored to identify and record anyarchaeological finds.

N


21/55



Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment

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

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment

Table 13.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment during construction


13.5.31 More information is needed on mitigation toaddress effects on the historic environment.

EH 1 An assessment of the likely significanteffects on the historicenvironment is being completed as part of our environmental

impact assessment. We are consulting with English Heritageas part of this process. The findings of the assessment,together with any recommendations for mitigation, will beavailable as part of the Environmental statementthat will besubmitted with our DCO application.

Additionally, our draft CoCP(provided at phase twoconsultation) sets out a range of measures to safeguard thehistoric environment during construction. Such measuresinclude confirmation that works close to listed buildingswould be undertaken in accordance with all requirements setout in the DCO and that protection measures, as required,would be put in place at the start of the works. We wouldalso notify English Heritage and the RBKC prior toundertaking works and would continue to engage with themclosely on the planning of the works.

N

Land quality and contamination

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to land quality and contamination

13.5.32 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to land quality and contamination during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination

Table 13.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to land quality and contamination during construction


13.5.33 There is potential for contamination withinthe site boundary.

8402 1 As set out in the PEIR(volume 16, section 8) baselineconditions at the site have been assessed through theintegration of available desk based data and a site walkover.The Environmental statementthat will be submitted with ourDCO application will include a section on land quality thatwill take into account comments and information about theprevious use of the site and the potential for contaminationin developing a methodology for further groundinvestigations. Our Environmental statementwill set out anyrecommendations for mitigation in line with our draft CoCP.

Our draft CoCPsets out how any identified contaminationwould be addressed during construction, in agreement withthe regulator to remediate contamination and avoidexposure of sensitive environmental receptors to it. Anyremediation works on site would be undertaken to the

N


22/55




relevant standards and in agreements with the RBKC and/orthe Environment Agency as relevant.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination

13.5.34 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of land quality and contamination during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination

13.5.35 No objections, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on land quality and contamination during construction.

Lighting

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

Natural environment (aquatic)

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the natural environment (aquatic)

13.5.37 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic)

Table 13.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction


13.5.38 Effect on foreshore habitat(s); although it isacknowledged that they are of poor speciesdiversity.

GLA, RBKC, LR9491 3 As part of our PEIR(volume 16, section 5) we assessed thelikely significant construction effects of the proposeddevelopment on aquatic ecology including the foreshore

habitat. The PEIRconsiders the likely significant effects onthe foreshore and River Thames and identifies a number ofeffects associated with a new mooring and any necessarychannel reshaping or dredging. The effects would becontrolled through measures to be set out in our CoCP. It isalso noted that the effects would be temporary and thehabitat would recover following removal of the temporarystructures. We acknowledge that this is a preliminaryassessment. We are preparing a full aquatic ecologyassessment for submission in the Environmental statementas part of our DCO application.

N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic)

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

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic)Table 13.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic) during construction


13.5.40 Provision of compensation habitat, includingrefuges for fish and other species.

LR9491 1 The effects during the construction phase would betemporary and it is anticipated that the habitat would recoverfollowing removal of the temporary structures. We do notbelieve that it is necessary to provide any compensationhabitat for the construction phase of the works.

N


23/55


24/55




development on habitats will be assessed and reported inthe Environmental statementthat will be submitted as part ofthe application. The CoCPthat will be submitted with theapplication would ensure that works are undertaken incompliance with applicable legislation, and with relevantnature conservation policies and guidance, including theMayor of Londons Biodiversity strategyand localbiodiversity action plans. Where species are protected by

specific legislation, approved guidance would be followed,appropriate mitigation would be proposed and anynecessary licences or consents obtained.

13.5.45 Should consider the importance of anyexisting buildings for protected species.

LR9447 1 There are no existing buildings on the site but the likelysignificant effects of the development on all potentialhabitats will be assessed and reported in the Environmentalstatementthat will be submitted as part of the application.

N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial)

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

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial)

Table 13.5.17 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction


13.5.47 Any trees lost during construction must bereplaced.

RBKC 1 Our proposals for this site utilise an existing gap in the lineof trees along Chelsea Embankment (A3212) to access theforeshore site in order to limit the number of trees we affect.Based on our preferred site at phase two consultation wewould be required to remove approximately 12 semi-maturetrees, the majority of which would be along the edge ofRanelagh Gardens in order to access the Low Level SewerNo.1. We have sought to locate our site to minimise theloss of trees in this location and our plans for landscapinginclude the planting of new trees to replace those that wouldbe lost.

For those trees that are retained our draft CoCPsets outhow we would protect existing trees during construction.Measures such as protective fencing and prohibition ofstoring material in the protected area would be implemented

prior to works being undertaken as specified in BritishStandard BS5837 where practicable and based onconsultation with the RBKC and TfL tree officers.

N

13.5.48 Trees must be retained/protected duringconstruction.

GLA 1 N

13.5.49 Any other vegetation/habitat lost duringconstruction must be replaced.

GLA 1 N

13.5.50 Locate construction activities within the siteto avoid sensitive and designated areas.

LR9491 1 All construction activities would be contained within ourproposed construction site.

N

13.5.51 Undertake site surveys prior to thecommencement of construction; have notcompleted the damage survey to the localecology.

7566 1 We have already completed a range of surveys at this siteas detailed in the PEIR(volume 16, section 5). Where ourmethodology for the Environmental statement, which hasbeen agreed with the RBKC, identifies the need for further

N


25/55




surveys we would ensure that these are completed prior tosubmission of our DCO application. If our assessment oflikely significant effects identifies the need for further sitesurveys prior to commencement of construction these wouldbe undertaken in accordance with all relevant guidelines andbest practice.

13.5.52 Other natural environment mitigation:

- maximise opportunities to enhance

biodiversity through an effectivemitigation package

- Thames Water should take steps tosecure the long-term protection of anyprotected species which may beimpacted.

RBKC, 7212, LR9447, LR9491 4 Details of proposed mitigation measures and initial ecologysurveys for the site were set out in the PEIR(volume 16,

section 5) as part of our phase two consultation. As wehave completed our surveys, we have confirmed thepresence or absence of species and habitats and developedmitigation measures as necessary. Our CoCPsets out arange of measures that would be implemented to controland limit disturbance. We are undertaking an environmentalimpact assessment, which will include a comprehensiveassessment of the likely significanteffects arising from theproposals. The findings of the assessment, together withany recommendations for mitigation, will be available as partof the Environmental statementthat will be submitted withour DCO application.

N

Noise and vibration

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to noise and vibration

Table 13.5.18 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to noise and vibration during construction


13.5.53 At the majority of dwellings noise is belowthe existing ambient noise levels; it isunlikely that the additional traffic fromconstruction vehicles will add significantly tothe existing traffic noise on surroundingroads.

RBKC 1 Your comment is noted and welcomed.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration

Table 13.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during construction


13.5.54 Noise and vibration from undergroundtunnelling; in the RBKC there is no mentionof an assessment of this aspect.

RBKC 1 Our PEIR(volume 16, section 9) sets out our preliminaryqualitative assessment of likely significant noise andvibration effects from construction site activities, noise fromconstruction traffic on roads outside the site and noise andvibration from operation of the site, together withassumptions that reflect the proposals in our draft CoCP.

The nearest residences located northeast of thedevelopment are residential flats at Pavilion Court andChelsea Gardens and these properties lie in the City ofWestminster. The nearest residences located to the west of

N

13.5.55 General noise effects arising fromconstruction activities.

8089, 8612 2 N

13.5.56 General vibration effects arising fromconstruction activities.

8089 1 N

13.5.57 Proximity of noisy construction activities to 8612 1 N


26/55




residential area/densely populated area. the site are on Embankment Gardens and are in the RBKC.The residential properties and other sensitive receptorsselected for the noise and vibration assessment areidentified in our PEIR(volume 16, section 9) at Table 9.4.1.These were selected as they are representative of the rangeof noise climates where sensitive receptors are situatedaround the site. The PEIRassessment used Defra's Londonnoise maps.

The Environmental statementthat will be submitted with ourDCO application will include an assessment of noise andvibration that will be completed in line with the methodologythat is compliant with BS4142 and has been agreed with theRBKC. If significant noise effects are identified at a site, wewould set out appropriate mitigation measures to provideappropriate attenuation.

As set out in our Chelsea Embankment Foreshore siteinformation paper, our contractor would be required toimplement noise and vibration control measures at the site,in line with the requirements of the CoCP. The contractorwould also need to gain approval prior to the constructionwork from the RBKC through a Section 61 application underthe Control of Pollution Act which would set out specificworking methods and the measures to minimise noise and

vibration. This would ensure that the noise levels arereasonable and best practical means are applied. Themeasures would be agreed with local authorityenvironmental health officers.

Additionally we would implement best practice measures tominimise noise and vibration from plant and works includingthe selection of appropriate plant and equipment, siting ofequipment, and use of enclosures to provide acousticscreens. Full details of the measures that will be adopted forthe construction will be set out in the CoCPto be submittedwith our DCO application.

The Environmental statementthat will be submitted with ourDCO application will include an assessment of noise andvibration that would be completed in line with themethodology that is compliant with BS5228, BS6472 and

BS7385 and has been agreed with the RBKC.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration

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


27/55



Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration

Table 13.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction


13.5.59 More information is needed on mitigation ofnoise and vibration effects: as existingbaseline vibration magnitudes are notpresented, this should be included forcomparison, if not here then in the

Environmental statement.

RBKC 1 The Environmental statementthat will be submitted withour DCO application will include a full assessment of likelysignificant noise and vibration effects that would becompleted in line with the methodology that is compliantwith BS5228, BS6472 and BS7385 and has been agreed

with the RBKC.Our draft CoCPsets out a range of measures that wouldbe adopted by our contractor, to minimise noise andvibration from plant and works including the selection ofappropriate plant and equipment, siting of equipment, anduse of enclosures to provide acoustic screens. Specificmeasures such as acoustic suppression systems,operation of equipment in the mode that minimises noiseand shutting down equipment when not in use are alsoidentified in our draft CoCP. Our contractor would berequired to comply with the requirements of the CoCP.The draft CoCPalso states that our contractor would berequired to apply for Section 61 consents (s.61) under theControl of Pollution Act 1974. These would set out specificworking methods and the measures to minimise noise and

vibration as well as any appropriate monitoring measuresto be agreed with local authority environmental healthofficers.

N

Open space and recreation

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to open space and recreation

Table 13.5.21 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to open space and recreation during construction


13.5.60 Temporary loss of open space is acceptableas long as Ranelagh Gardens is restored.

9078 1 Your comment is noted and welcomed.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation

Table 13.5.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to open space and recreation during construction


13.5.61 Effect on river navigation and recreationalriver users.

8089 1 The impact of the cofferdam structure at this site onnavigation and recreational river users is the subject of on-going studies and we are preparing a navigational riskassessment. Where this is shown to have an adverse effecton navigational safety, we will amend our proposals orprovide appropriate mitigation in discussion with the PLA.

N

13.5.62 The site is a very valuable recreational 8612 1 We recognise that this area is considered to be a valuablerecreational amenity for the local community. Our works are

N


28/55


29/55




addition to the measures that are set out in our draft CoCP.

We are also preparing a Health impact assessmentthat willexamine the likely significant effects of the proposeddevelopment on human health and well-being and possibleeffects in the population. The findings of this study willinform the design for this site as well as mitigation measuresto address any significant effects.

13.5.70 Effect of construction activities on the local

community.

7212, 9186 2 Our site selection process, as detailed in our Site selection

methodologyincluded an assessment of the shortlisted sitesagainst five 'community' considerations to help determinetheir suitability. They included proximity to sensitivereceptors (including residential and schools), socio-economic, health and equality considerations. Our Phasetwo scheme development reportprovides an overview ofhow each site was chosen.

Our PEIR(volume 16, section 10) provides a preliminaryassessment of the likely significant effects of the scheme onresidential amenity and concludes effects are not likely to besignificant. We are preparing an Environmental statementthat will be submitted as part of our DCO application. TheEnvironmental statementwill assess the effects of theproposed development.

N

13.5.71 General disruption associated withconstruction activities.

8402, 9186 2 N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects13.5.72 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects

Table 13.5.24 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during construction


13.5.73 Mitigation proposed to address socio-economic effects is inadequate/insufficient.

8402 1 We have set out a range of measures which we believe thatwould mitigate the effects of construction at this site. Inparticular our draft CoCPidentifies that our contractor wouldbe required to implement a range of measures at the siteduring construction, including best practice measures tominimise noise and vibration from plant and works includingthe selection of appropriate plant and equipment, siting ofequipment and use of hoardings to provide acoustic

screens. Additionally our PEIRassessments take intoaccount the mitigation measures set out in the CoCPandtherefore our assessment is based on the assumption thatthe mitigation would be implemented.

We are continuing to develop our CoCPand Environmentalstatementwhich will be submitted as part of our DCOapplication.

N


30/55



Structures and utilities

13.5.74 No feedback comments were received in relation to structures and utilities during construction.

Townscape and visual

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to townscape and visual effects

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

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects

Table 13.5.25 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction


13.5.76 Effect of construction activities andstructures on the character of the local area.

8612 1 The effect of construction activity on the character of thelocal area would be for a temporary period only. Our draftCoCPsets out measures that would ensure that theconstruction site would be well operated and maintained.Measures to minimise likely significant effects upon thecharacter of the site during construction, such as use ofsuitable screening around the construction site will be setout in the CoCPand Environmental statementto besubmitted with our DCO application.

N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on townscape and visual

13.5.77 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on townscape and visual during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on townscape and visual13.5.78 No objections, issues, concerns or suggestions were received in relation to the measures proposed to address effects on townscape and visual during construction.

Transport and access

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access

Table 13.5.26 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to transport and access during construction


13.5.79 Support proposed site access; there issufficient width to provide a temporary siteaccess lane while maintaining tworeasonably wide lanes past the site (at least3.5 metres each). While there wouldinevitably be some impact on traffic flows

this impact should be limited.

RBKC 1 Your support is noted and welcomed.

13.5.80 Support proposed construction traffic routes;there is a minimal impact of road narrowing.

7457 1

13.5.81 Support proposed use of barges to transportmaterials.

PLA 1


31/55



Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access

Table 13.5.27 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction


13.5.82 It is not clear what the scale of transporteffects will be; the assessment to date isvery vague.

GLA 1 As part of our PEIR(Volume 16, Section 12) we assessedthe construction transport effects on pedestrian and cycleroutes; bus and other public transport routes and patronage;parking; and highway layout, operation and capacity as wellas the effects on residential amenity. As part of the

assessment we have considered the effects of lorry and(where applicable) barge transport, based on a methodologythat has been discussed and agreed with the RBKC andTransport for London (TfL). The PEIRwas available as partof our phase two consultation.

We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. Weare preparing a full Transport assessmentfor submission aspart of our DCO application. The Transport assessmentwillconsider the cumulative effects of our works with otherstrategic developments in the local area and major plannedevents such as the Chelsea Flower Show.

N

13.5.83 Cumulative transport effects arising fromother development in the local area

including the works proposed at Lots Road,Chelsea Embankment, VictoriaEmbankment and Blackfriars.

GLA, RBKC, 8612 3 N

13.5.84 Disruption to the use of the Thames Pathcaused by construction works or diversion.

GLA, RBKC, 9055 3 The work sites that we propose for construction wouldrequire the temporary diversion of the Thames Path asindicated in the site information paper to maintain a saferoute that accesses local amenities. These diversions would

ensure that a safe route along Chelsea Embankment(A3212) would remain open during construction. Thedetailed routes would be agreed with the RBKC and TfL.The proposed diversions would last for the duration of theworks, after which the current Thames Path route would bereinstated.

We are considering the feasibility of re-opening the ThamesPath at weekends and will continue to discuss this with theRBKC.

N

13.5.85 Effect of disruption, diversion or closure of

pedestrian or cycle route.

LR13499 1 N

13.5.86 Construction traffic will cause trafficcongestion.

RBKC, 7457, 8702, 8814, 9303 5 As part of our PEIR(volume 16, section 12) we assessedthe construction transport effects on pedestrian and cycleroutes; bus and other public transport routes and patronage;parking; and highway layout, operation and capacity as wellas the effects on residential amenity. At this site we propose

to use barges to bring in and take away material used to fillthe cofferdam. This is expected to reduce the number oflorry visits to/from this site by approximately 45 per cent. Aspart of the assessment we have considered likely significanteffects of lorry and where applicable barge transport, basedon a methodology that has been discussed and agreed withthe RBKC and TfL. The PEIRwas available as part of ourphase two consultation.

We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. Weare preparing a full Transport assessmentfor submission as

C

13.5.87 Construction traffic will exacerbate existingtraffic congestion.

GLA, 7271, 7568, 8814, LR13499 5 C

13.5.88 Construction traffic will affect access to thelocal area. 8089, 8702 2 C

Ch l E b k F h


32/55




part of our DCO application. The Transport assessmentwillconsider the cumulative effects of our works with otherstrategic developments in the local area and major plannedevents such as the Chelsea Flower Show. We are reviewingthe proposed routes that construction traffic would use aspart of our transport assessment. If the transportassessment identifies any likely significant effects arisingfrom congestion we would develop mitigation measures tominimise the effects of any disruption. As illustrated in theChelsea Embankment Foreshore site information paperroadaccess to the site is proposed via Chelsea Embankment(A3212) which is part of the major road network. As outlinedin the PEIR(volume 16, section 12). It is expected that atthe peak of construction (year three) an average of 33 lorrieswould travel to and from the site each working day. In thecontext of existing traffic in the local area the expectedconstruction traffic is not considered to be significant. Weare also developing a CoCPfor submission with our DCOapplication which will include requirements for a Trafficmanagement planto ensure that construction traffic iscarefully controlled to minimise any potential likely significanteffects on the road network including access to the localarea, as well as setting out construction traffic routes, siteaccess/egress points, signage and monitoring procedures.

13.5.89 Proposed access route to the site will resultin local road closures (ChelseaEmbankment (A3212).

GLA, LR13499 2 It is currently not the intention to close ChelseaEmbankment (A3212) as it is recognised that this is a keyelement of the road network. The proposed constructionaccess arrangements maintain two-way traffic by reducingroad lane widths as illustrated in our site information paper.The Traffic management planthat we are currentlydeveloping will set out details of the lanes that would beclosed or (to maintain two way operation) narrowed, theprocess for notification of closures. Our transportassessment will also consider the effects of the roadrealignment and narrowing during the construction periodand identify any mitigation measures that are required. Wewill work closely with the RBKC and TfL in developing theproposals and to notify any affected parties.

N

13.5.90 Loss of car parking will affect accessibility tothe local area and increase parkingpressure.

8089 1 Our proposals for this site do not currently identify any lossof car parking. Parking bays in the Bull Ring area are notidentified as directly affected during the works, although ifthis area is resurfaced they would be temporarily suspendedduring such surfacing works

N

13.5.91 Effect of construction traffic on road safety. GLA, 8814 2 We would design site accesses and operate all of ourconstruction sites to ensure that they meet design, healthand safety standards. We are developing a CoCP(a draft ofwhich was provided as part of our phase two consultation),

N

13.5.92 Effect of construction traffic on pedestrian,cyclist and local resident safety due to roadclosure and narrowing.

GLA 1 N

13 Ch l E b k t F h


33/55




13.5.93 Effect of construction traffic on residentialamenity.

8814 1 which will include requirements for a Traffic managementplanto ensure that construction traffic is carefully controlledto minimise any potential likely significant effects on the roadnetwork including access to the local area, as well as settingout construction traffic routes, site access/egress points,signage and monitoring procedures.

The transport assessment will also review data relating torecent accidents. The proposals would be subject to

independent external review by TfL and the RBKC to ensureproposed highway layouts and vehicle movementarrangements are as safe as possible.

N

13.5.94 More information is needed on constructiontransport effects.

GLA, 7708 2 We carefully considered the information we made availableat our phase two consultation to ensure that consultees hadsufficient information to respond to the consultation. Theinformation was based on our preliminary transportassessment which is still being developed and we willdiscuss the details further with TfL and the RBKC to ensurethat any significant transport effects are identified in the Environmental statementto be submitted as part of our DCOapplication.

N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access

13.5.95 No supportive or neutral feedback comm

supp report on p2 consultation - chapter 13 chelsea embankment foreshore

Documents