supp report on p2 consultation - chapter 17 victoria embankment foreshore

7/31/2019 Supp Report on P2 Consultation - Chapter 17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

1/43

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

Supplementary reporton phase twoconsultation

Chapter 17 Victoria EmbankmentForeshore


2/43

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore

Thames Tunnel

Supplementary report on phase two consultation

List of contents

Page number

17 Victoria Embankment Foreshore ............................................................... 17-117.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 17-117.2 Number of respondents ...................................................................... 17-217.3 Site selection ...................................................................................... 17-217.4 Alternative sites .................................................................................. 17-417.5 Management of construction works .................................................... 17-517.6 Permanent design and appearance .................................................. 17-2417.7 Management of operational effects .................................................. 17-3017.8 Our view of the way forward ............................................................. 17-38


3/43


List of tables

Page number

Table 17.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on VictoriaEmbankment Foreshore ................................................................. 17-2

Table 17.3.1 Views on whether Victoria Embankment Foreshore should be ourpreferred site (Q2) .......................................................................... 17-3

Table 17.3.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to selection of our

preferred site .................................................................................. 17-3Table 17.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection of preferred

site .................................................................................................. 17-3Table 17.4.1 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the availability and

identification of alternative sites ...................................................... 17-5Table 17.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site

information paper? (Q4a) ............................................................... 17-5Table 17.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key

issues? (Q4b) ................................................................................. 17-5Table 17.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed

to address the key issues during construction ................................ 17-6Table 17.5.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour

during construction 17 7


4/43


Table 17.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposedto address the effects of noise and vibration during construction . 17-14

Table 17.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning anddevelopment during construction .................................................. 17-15

Table 17.5.17 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects during construction ........................................... 17-15

Table 17.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effectsduring construction ....................................................................... 17-15

Table 17.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposedto address socio-economic effects during construction ................ 17-16

Table 17.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilitiesduring construction ....................................................................... 17-16

Table 17.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposedto address the effects on structures and utilities during construction 17-18

Table 17.5.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visualeffects during construction............................................................ 17-18

Table 17.5.23 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transportand access during construction .................................................... 17-19

Table 17.5.24 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and accessduring construction ....................................................................... 17-19


5/43


Table 17.7.4 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to air qualityand odour during operation .......................................................... 17-32

Table 17.7.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odourduring operation ........................................................................... 17-32

Table 17.7.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the historic environmentduring operation ........................................................................... 17-33

Table 17.7.7 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment(aquatic) during operation............................................................. 17-34

Table 17.7.8 Objections, issues and concerns f in relation to the measuresproposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic)during operation ........................................................................... 17-34

Table 17.7.9 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the naturalenvironment (terrestrial) during operation..................................... 17-35

Table 17.7.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposedto address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) duringoperation ...................................................................................... 17-35

Table 17.7.11 Supportive and neutral feedback comments relating to socio-economic effects during operation ................................................ 17-36

Table 17.7.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effectsduring operation ........................................................................... 17-36

Table 17.7.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed

to address socio economic effects d ring operation 17 36


6/43


Supplementary report on phase two consultation 17-1


17.1 Introduction

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

Structure of this chapter

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

section 17.2 Number of respondents

section 17.3 Site selection

section 17.4 Alternative sites

section 17.5 Management of construction works

section 17.6 Permanent design and appearance

section 17.7 Management of operational effects

section 17.8 Our view of the way forward.

17.1.3 In sections 17.3 to 17.7 we present details of the feedback comments raised, the types and total number of respondents, and our response to feedback comments. Where specific

objections, issues or concerns have been raised, the final column of the tables indicates whether, in response to the feedback received: C we are considering or proposing change or additional mitigation

1 to that set out in our phase two consultation material

N we do not propose to amend our proposals.

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

17.1.5 Where a response contains a reference to our website, go to www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk for further information, or to access the documents re ferenced.

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/


7/43



17.2 Number of respondents

17.2.1 A total of 22 respondents provided feedback on Victoria Embankment Foreshore, of which seven were received after the close of phase two consultation. Table 17.2.1 sets out thedifferent groups who provided feedback for this site.

Table 17.2.1 Number of respondents who provided feedback on Victoria 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

- City of Westminster (WCC)

2 respondents 13 respondents 0 petitions

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

17.3 Site selection

17.3.1 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 a methodologythat 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.

17.3.2 The results of the site selection process up to phase two consultation are set out 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.

17.3.3 In this section, we set out the feedback comments received in relation to the selection of Victoria Embankment Foreshore as our preferred site, together with our responses. 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 P of the

Design development reportand our PEIR(volume 20).

17.3.4 Where respondents commented on matters relating to management of construction works, permanent design and appearance or the management of operational effects at VictoriaEmbankment Foreshore, these comments are reported in sections 17.5 to 17.7.

Number of respondents

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


8/43



Table 17.3.1 Views on whether Victoria 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 1 1

Community consultees 6 3 2 1

Petitions 0

Total 8 3 3 2

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to our preferred site

Table 17.3.2 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to selection of our preferred site

Ref Supportive and neutral comments Respondent ID No. Our response

17.3.6 Support the use of the preferred site. LR9447 1 Your support is noted and welcomed.

17.3.7 Qualified support for the preferred siteincluded:

- the site is generally in the right location,although the structure in the River Thameshas not been designed to take account ofnavigational risk

GLA, 9427 2 Refer to paragraph 17.5.16, for a response to navigational riskassessment.

- does not appear to be any realisticalternative; Thames Water shouldundertake further work to ensure that thesite can be delivered in an acceptable way

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

- reserve final judgement until the proposalsare submitted. Your comment is noted.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to our preferred site

Table 17.3.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to selection of preferred site

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

17.3.8 Object to the use of this preferred site. Inparticular, the Environment Agency isopposed in principle to the use of anyforeshore sites along the Thames Tidewayas this is likely to lead to a number ofdetrimental effects to flood riskmanagement, biodiversity and recreationalthough I recognise the environmentalbenefits that the Thames Tunnel pro ject will

EA 1 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 multidisciplinary approachto assess potential CSO sites against engineering, planning,environmental, property and community considerations.

We recognise that, given the locations where we are seeking to constructand operate the tunnel, many of the shortlisted sites are constrained.


9/43




deliver and there is a need to develop asnear to the river as possible.

However, based on our assessment we consider that, on balance,Victoria Embankment Foreshore is the most suitable site. This isbecause the use of the foreshore is preferable to the temporary loss ofand the potential permanent effects on the Grade II listed VictoriaEmbankment Gardens.

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

17.3.9 Query why shortlisted sites have not beenidentified.

EH 1 The shortlisted sites were listed in the Victoria Embankment Foreshoresite information paper. Appendix P of the Phase two schemedevelopment reportsets out all the sites assessed as part of the siteselection process, including the shortlisted sites.

17.3.10 Site selection should avoid greenfield sitesand open space.

9055 1 We took whether a site is brownfield or greenfield/open space intoaccount along with other considerations, as set out in the Site selectionmethodology paper.

17.3.11 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 Regent StreetCSO, the overflow point is located within our proposed site and, asexplained in our response to paragraph 17.3.8, we consider any land-based sites identified through our site selection process less suitable.

17.3.12 Do not support changes to the extent of thepreferred site since phase oneconsultation/do not support the specificlocation of the site, specifically:

- encourage a reduction in the site footprintto minimise the projection into the river

- the ship bar will not be able to remain inits current location; the nature of thebusiness means that it is very sensitive tolocation. The WCC draft CityManagement Plan seeks to continue itsexisting policy to restrict moorings exceptin exceptional circumstances; this meansthat getting planning permission to

relocate the bar may be difficult.

WCC, 9432LO 2 The cofferdam structure has been located further south along the RiverThames foreshore, away from the Golden Jubilee footbridge/Hungerfordrail bridge, in order to minimise the risk of disturbance to the LondonUnderground Bakerloo Line tunnels and reduce the potential for effectson river flow and river services. This would also remove the need tomove the Hispaniola restaurant ship during construction works. Wetherefore consider that the proposals presented at phase twoconsultation are more appropriate. We are considering ways to reducethe projection of the temporary site footprint into the River Thames.

Refer to paragraph 17.5.53, for a response to comments regarding theeffect on the Tattershall Castle.

Shortlisted sites

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

17.4 Alternative sites

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


10/43



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

Table 17.4.1 Supportive and neutral comments in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites

Ref Comments Respondent ID No. Our response

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

7404 1 Your support is welcomed and noted.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the availability and identification of alternative sites

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

17.5 Management of construction works

17.5.1 This section sets out comments received during phase two consultation in relation to the management of construction works at Victoria Embankment Foreshore. This includes theidentification of site specific issues arising from construction activities and proposals for addressing these i ssues.

17.5.2 During phase two consultation, respondents were asked whether the site information paper had identified the right key issues associated with Victoria 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 17.5.1 and 17.5.2. Tables 17.5.3 to 17.5.26 detail the feedback comments received in relation to this site. It should be noted that not all respondents who providedfeedback comments confirmed whether the right issues and the ways to address those issues had been identified.

Table 17.5.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right key issues in the site information paper? (Q4a)


Total Yes No Dont know/unsure

Statutory consultees 0

Local authorities 0

Landowners 1 1

Community consultees 4 3 1

Petitions 0

Total 5 4 0 1

Table 17.5.2 Do you agree that we have identified the right way to address the key issues? (Q4b)




Local authorities 0

Landowners 1 1


Petitions 0

Total 5 4 0 1


11/43



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

General themes:

General feedback comments on key issues

General feedback comments on measures to address the key issues

Topic-based themes

Air quality and odour

Construction working hours and programme

Construction site design and layout

Historic environment

Land quality and contamination

Lighting

Natural environment (aquatic)

Natural environment (terrestrial)

Noise and vibration

Open space and recreation

Planning and development

Socio-economic

Structures and utilities

Townscape and visual

Transport and access

Water and flood risk

General feedback comments on the identified key issues

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the identified key issues

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

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

17.5.5 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to general comments on the identified key issues during construction.

General feedback comments on the measures proposed to address the key issues

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

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

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

Table 17.5.3 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the key issues during construction

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

17.5.7 Construction impacts must be minimised at

every stage of construction.

GLA 1 We are developing a CoCPthat will set out how we would

manage 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


12/43



Air quality and odour

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

17.5.8 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to air quality and odour during construction.

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

Table 17.5.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to air quality and odour during construction


17.5.9 Dust and dirt arising from constructionactivities.

8277LO 1 Our Managing construction project information paperanddraft CoCPset out how dust control measures and dustmonitoring equipment would be put in place to minimiseeffects of dust from construction activities. Our draft CoCPconfirms that an Air quality management planwill beprepared and implemented for each site to control dustemissions, and proposed techniques would be in line withbest practice guidelines. Our preliminary assessment oflikely significant air quality effects, as reported in our PEIR(volume 20, section 4), did not identify any significant effectsat residential or other sensitive receptors (such as schools)near this site. Further assessment of nearby properties willbe undertaken as part of our on-going environmental impactassessment work and this will be reported in theEnvironmental statementthat isto be submitted with ourDCO application. If significant effects are identified,

appropriate mitigation would be proposed.

N

17.5.10 Effect of construction traffic emissions on airquality.

GLA 1 We have set out measures in our draft CoCPthat would beadopted to limit vehicle and plant emissions, including usinglow emission vehicles, turning off engines when not neededand minimising vehicle movements around the site.

Our preliminary assessment outlined in our PEIR(volume20, section 4) stated that, with these measures in place, wedo not expect any significant local air quality effects arisingfrom vehicle and plant emissions at this site. We arepreparing a full assessment for submission in theEnvironmental statementas part of our DCO application,which will include dispersion modelling. Dispersionmodelling will assess the likely significant effects of theconstruction phase at all proposed sites for the relevant

short- and long-term NO2 and PM10 air quality objectives.Where significant effects are identified, appropriatemitigation would be proposed.

N

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

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


13/43



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

Table 17.5.5 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of air quality and odour during construction


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

GLA 1 We can confirm that the Best Practice Guidance has beentaken into account in developing our proposals for this site.Our draft CoCPsets out measures for managing our worksas well as details of the various regulatory regimes andguidance that we would need to comply with, such as the

Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Environmental ProtectionAct 1990, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, theMayor of London's Ambient Noise Strategy 2004 and Thecontrol of dust and emissions from construction anddemolition -Best Practice Guidance 2008, as well asvarious British Standards.

C

Construction working hours and programme

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

Construction site design and layout

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

17.5.14 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to construction site design and layout.

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

Table 17.5.6 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to construction site design and layout


17.5.15 Concerned about the extent of theconstruction site.

WCC 1 The site area proposed is required in order to carry out theworks on this site. The layout has been developed tominimise the site area where possible; however, wecontinue to consider ways to reduce the constructionfootprint in the river. This matter will be the subject oftargeted consultation for this site.

C

17.5.16 Existence and/or size of structure(s) withinthe foreshore of the River Thames; inrespect of possible effects on navigationalrisk.

8853 1 We are carrying out a navigational risk assessment for thesite and will continue to work with the PLA as we do so. Wewould implement appropriate mitigation measures identifiedin the navigational risk assessment.

N

Suggestions for construction site design and layoutTable 17.5.7 Suggestions for construction site design and layout

Ref Suggestions for construction design andlayout

Respondent ID No. Our response Outcome

17.5.17 Further consideration must be given to theextent and construction of the cofferdam inorder to maintain navigational safety and toensure barges can moor parallel to the tidalstream.

PLA 1 We will review methods for constructing the cofferdam andthe orientation of the moored barge. This matter will be thesubject of targeted consultation for this site.

C


14/43


15/43




be required to implement.

We are considering changes to our site design that will bethe subject of targeted consultation.

17.5.22 Effect of construction activities onarchaeology.

EH 1 Our phase two consultation material included a preliminaryassessment of likely significant archaeological effects, asdetailed in the PEIR(volume 20, section 7). Our preliminaryassessment determined that the potential for archaeologicalremains in the channel is low due to probable dredging.However, there is the potential for palaeo-environmentalremains. The desk-based study of the site suggests that noburied heritage assets of very high significance areanticipated that might merit a mitigation strategy ofpermanent preservation in situ. An assessment of the likelysignificant effects on the historic environment is beingcompleted as part of our environmental impact assessment.We are consulting with English Heritage as part of thisprocess.

Our draft CoCP(provided at phase two consultation) setsout a range of measures that would be adopted by ourcontractor in respect of archaeology and a full assessmentof the likely significant effects of the scheme on the historicenvironment, together with any recommendations for

mitigation, will be set out in our Environmental statementthat will be submitted with our DCO application. As set out inour CoCP, we would put in place procedures to ensure thatconstruction works are appropriately monitored to identifyand record any archaeological finds.

C

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

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

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

Table 17.5.9 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the historic environment


17.5.24 More information is needed on mitigation. EH 1 An assessment of the likely significant effects 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 set

N


16/43




out in the Development Consent Order and that protectionmeasures, as required, would be put in place at the start ofthe works. We would also notify English Heritage and theWCC prior to undertaking works and would continue toengage with them closely on the planning of the works.

17.5.25 Provide suitable protection for listedstructures during construction.

GLA 1 Our CoCP(provided at phase two consultation) sets out ourapproach to protecting the historic environment, includinglisted structures, during construction. Measures include

preparing a Heritage management plan; implementingprotective measures, such as temporary support, hoardingsand barriers around heritage assets; careful choice of plant;condition surveys; and procedures for the emergency repairof any damage to listed buildings.

N

Land quality and contamination

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

Lighting

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

Natural environment (aquatic)

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

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

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

Table 17.5.10 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (aquatic) during construction


17.5.29 Effect on foreshore habitat(s), although ofpoor species diversity, including impacts ofrelocating the Tattershall Castle and anydredging requirements.

EA, GLA, LR9491 3 As part of our PEIR(volume 20, section 5), we assessed thelikely significant construction effects of the proposeddevelopment on aquatic ecology, including the foreshorehabitat. The PEIRconsidered the likely significant effects onthe foreshore and River Thames and recognised a numberof impacts, including those associated with a new mooringand any necessary channel reshaping or dredging. Many ofthe effects would be controlled by the measures set out inour CoCP. It is also noted that many effects would be

temporary and the habitat would recover following removalof the temporary structures. W e acknowledge that this is apreliminary assessment. We are preparing a full aquaticecology assessment for submission in the Environmentalstatementas 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)

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


17/43



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

Table 17.5.11 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (aquatic)


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

LR9491 1 Many of the effects during the construction phase would betemporary and we anticipate 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.

N

Natural environment (terrestrial)

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

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

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

Table 17.5.12 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction


17.5.33 Loss of trees arising from constructionactivities.

GLA 1 Our proposals for this site would require the removal of foursemi-mature London plane trees to enable access to thesite. These trees are considered to have a low intrinsicbiodiversity value and are unlikely to support any notablespecies; however we recognise that they possess amenity

and townscape value. We have sought to locate our site tominimise the loss of trees and our landscaping plans includeplanting new trees to replace those that would be lost. Allother trees within or close to the site would be subject to treeprotection measures, as detailed in our draft CoCP. Ourcontractor would implement the identified measures wherepracticable and in consultation with the WCC tree officer.

N

17.5.34 More information is needed on the effect ofconstruction activities on the naturalenvironment.

LR9491 1 We consider that we have undertaken a thorough andcomprehensive consultation exercise. As part of this, wecarefully considered the information we made available atour phase two consultation to ensure that consultees hadsufficient information to respond to the consultation. Thisincluded our draft CoCPand PEIR(volume 20). We areconfident therefore that the information we have provided issufficient. Further assessment will be undertaken as part of

our on-going environmental impact assessment work andthis will be reported in the Environmental statementto besubmitted with our DCO application. If significant effects areidentified, appropriate mitigation would be proposed.

N

17.5.35 Should consider the potential importance ofany existing buildings for protected species.

LR9447 1 There are no existing buildings on the site but thesignificance of the effects on all potential habitats will beassessed and reported in the Environmental statementthatwill be submitted as part of the application.

N


18/43



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

17.5.36 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures to address the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction.

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

Table 17.5.13 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on the natural environment (terrestrial) during construction


17.5.37 Trees must be retained/protected duringconstruction.

GLA 1 Our proposals for this site would require the removal of foursemi-mature London plane trees to enable access to the

site. These trees are considered to have a low intrinsicbiodiversity value and are unlikely to support any notablespecies; however, we recognise that they possess amenityand townscape value. We have sought to locate our site tominimise the loss of trees and our landscaping plans includeplanting new trees to replace those that would be lost. Allother trees within or close to the site would be subject to treeprotection measures, as detailed in our draft CoCP. Ourcontractor would implement the identified measures wherepracticable and in consultation with the WCC tree officer.

N

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

GLA 1 N

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

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

N

17.5.40 Other natural environment mitigationincluded:

- maximise opportunities to enhancebiodiversity through an effective mitigationpackage

LR9447, LR9491 2 We have not identified the need to provide compensatoryland-based habitat at this site, as set out in our PEIR(volume 20, section 6).

We are undertaking an environmental impact assessment,which will include a comprehensive assessment of the likelysignificanteffects arising from the proposals, includingeffects on notable species. 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.

N

- Thames Water should take steps to securethe long-term protection of any protectedspecies that may be impacted.

N

Noise and vibration

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to noise and vibration

17.5.41 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to noise and vibration during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration

Table 17.5.14 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to noise and vibration during construction


17.5.42 General noise effects arising fromconstruction activities.

8277LO 1 As set out in our Victoria Embankment Foreshore siteinformation paper, the 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 from the WCC prior to theconstruction work through a Section 61 application underthe Control of Pollution Act which would set out specificworking methods and the measures to minimise noise and

N

17.5.43 General vibration effects arising fromconstruction activities.

8277LO 1 N


19/43




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 acoustic

screens. Full details of the measures that would be adoptedfor the construction will be set out in the CoCPsubmittedwith our DCO application.

Our PEIR(volume 20, section 9) sets out our preliminaryqualitative assessment of likely significant noise andvibration from construction site activities; noise fromconstruction traffic on roads outside the site; and noise andvibration from the operational site. The proposals set out inour draft CoCPare included in the assessment. The PEIRassessment used the Department for Environment, Foodand Rural Affairs (Defra)'s London noise 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 the

WCC. If significant noise effects are identified at a site, wewould set out appropriate mitigation measures to provideappropriate attenuation.

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

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

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

Table 17.5.15 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of noise and vibration during construction


17.5.45 Suggestion for a project commitment tofollow the Section 61 CoPA process.

WCC 1 Your comment is noted. We can confirm that, as detailed inour draft CoCP, we would require our contractor to apply forconsents under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act.

N

Open space and recreation17.5.46 No feedback comments were received in relation to open space and recreation during construction.

Planning and development

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to planning and development

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


20/43



Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development

Table 17.5.16 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to planning and development during construction


17.5.48 Proposals will lead to planning blight. LR13378 1 Statutory procedures would be in place for those eligible toseek compensation. Our Exceptional hardship procedurewas published at phase two consultation and sets out ourcompensation programme. Any claims for statutory blightcan be made after the DCO application has been submitted.

N

17.5.49 Other planning and development issuesincluded:

- Westminster's emerging City ManagementPlan appears to seek to continue itsexisting policy to restrict moorings exceptin exceptional circumstances. Thosecircumstances may not apply to theTattershall Castle, which may mean thatplanning permission for relocation wouldnot be forthcoming

WCC, 9432LO 2 Our site information paper identifies a potential nearbypermanent relocation site to the south, which will beconsidered. Statutory procedures would be in place forthose eligible for compensation, should it not be possible torelocate the Tattershall Castle.

We have undertaken a review of adopted planning policyrelevant to the project that has informed our proposals forthis site. As a result, we do not believe that our proposals,including appropriate mitigation, are contrary to the relevantadopted policy. Further details on how we have taken thesepolicies into account can be found in the PEIR(volume 20)and Scheme development reportappendix P and Designdevelopment reportappendix P.

N

- further assessment and development ofthe proposals need to take full account ofborough and mayoral policies.

N

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development

17.5.50 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development

17.5.51 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on planning and development during construction.

Socio-economic

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects

Table 17.5.17 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to socio-economic effects during construction


17.5.52 No objection to the Tattershall Castle'sproposed relocation.

EH 1 Your comment is noted.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects

Table 17.5.18 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to socio-economic effects during construction


17.5.53 Temporary business relocation andassociated effects on the Tattershall Castle.

EH 1 Any works at the proposed worksite would mitigate anyadverse impacts on tourism, buses, taxis, parking andaccess to the river. The Thames Path would be divertedduring construction, utilising a safe route to enable access toVictoria Embankment and minimal impact on river access.The diverted route would be agreed with the WCC and TfL.

N

17.5.54 Permanent business relocation andassociated effects.

9432LO, LR13378 2 N

17.5.55 Detrimental effect on business operations of GLA, 8277LO, 9432LO, LR13378 4 N


21/43




the Hispaniola and the Tattershall Castle. Due to the location of our proposed work site, we wouldneed to relocate the Tattershall Castle, as identified in oursite information paper. We recognise that the relocation ofthe vessel would have an effect on the business andprovided a preliminary assessment in the socio-economicchapter of our PEIR (volume 20, section 10).

Landowners may have a statutory entitlement to claimcompensation for the diminution of the value of their

property due to the construction of the tunnel. In addition tothe statutory process we have published an Exceptionalhardship procedurewhich sets out how we would assessclaims from householders who contend that they aresuffering exceptional hardship as a result of being unable tosell their property because it is potentially impacted by ourcurrently published proposals. We have also published aGuide to the Thames Tunnel compensation programmewhich sets out details of compensation that would beavailable during construction for damage or loss, requiredprotection measures and compulsory purchase.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects

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

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

Table 17.5.19 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address socio-economic effects during construction


17.5.57 Provide alternative business premises forthe Tattershall Castle.

GLA 1 As shown in our site information paper we intend to relocatethe Tattershall Castle south of its existing location so thatthe business can continue to operate.

N

Structures and utilities

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation structures and utilities

17.5.58 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to structures and utilities issues during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation structures and utilities

Table 17.5.20 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to structures and utilities during construction


17.5.59 Structural damage to the river wall and theintegrity of any temporary structures used toreplace the river wall during construction willneed to be taken into account.

WCC 1 Our Settlement project information paperprovidesinformation on our approach to controlling and limitingground movement, which can cause settlement, associatedwith construction of the tunnel and shaft. It is acknowledgedthat construction of the tunnel would cause some smallmovements in the ground, the level of which would dependon a range of factors including the size and depth ofconstruction works as well as existing ground conditions.

N


22/43




We are assessing the potential likely significant effects ofground movement in advance of the works and, wherenecessary, would carry out protective measures. We wouldalso monitor actual ground movement during and after thetunnelling to check that the ground is reacting as predicted.We would also carry out a defects survey on buildingslocated over, or close to, our tunnels and worksites wherewe consider this necessary. The method used for assessing

settlement is similar to that used for the Channel Tunnel RailLink, the Jubilee Line extension, and Crossrail.

In the unlikely event of damage occurring to property due toour construction works taking place nearby, disturbancecompensation may be available as detailed in our Guide tothe Thames Tunnel project compensation programme.

17.5.60 Effect on underground transportation linesincluding the proximity to the Bakerloo andDistrict Line tunnels.

GLA 1 The location of the Bakerloo and District Line tunnels is afactor that has influenced our proposals for this site and wehave discussed our approach with Transport for London(TfL) as part of our design development process. We do notconsider that the presence of the tunnels would precludedevelopment at this site, which was chosen partly on thebasis of its distance from the tunnel (a closer location wassuggested at phase one consultation). We would take thisinto account in implementing our construction works at this

site.Our Settlement project information paperprovidesinformation on our approach to protecting against the likelysignificant effects of settlement associated with theconstruction of the tunnel. We would undertake studies toidentify any effects our construction work may have on thirdparty structures (such as buildings, bridges and tunnels).The studies may recommend particular constructionmethods or, in a very limited instances, protection works.These measures are in line with best practice guidelines anddetails will be set out in the CoCPthat we will submit withour DCO application.

N

17.5.61 Effect of construction activities on otherbelow-ground infrastructure.

WCC 1 Any utilities close to or within our sites would be surveyedprior to and protected during construction. We do not

consider that the presence of utilities would precludedevelopment at this site. We propose to continue detaileddiscussions with the WCC in relation to this matter.

N

17.5.62 Effect on other proposed below-groundinfrastructure, including pipe subway.

GLA 1

17.5.63 Query whether communications cableswould be connected in the pipe subway.

WCC 1 We envisage that this would be likely but propose advancediscussions with the WCC in terms of the principle and thedesign.

C

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities

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


23/43



Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities

Table 17.5.21 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on structures and utilities during construction


17.5.65 Undertake protection works. GLA 1 Our Settlement project information paperprovidesinformation on our approach to protecting against the likelysignificant effects of settlement associated with theconstruction of the tunnel. We would undertake studies toidentify any effects our construction work may have on third

party structures (such as buildings, bridges, tunnels andutilities). The studies may recommend particularconstruction methods or, in a very limited instances,protection works. These measures are in line with bestpractice guidelines and details will be set out in the CoCPthat we will submit with our DCO appli cation.

N

17.5.66 Other structures and utilities mitigationincluded an asset protection agreement.

WCC 1 N

Townscape and visual

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

17.5.67 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction.

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

Table 17.5.22 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to townscape and visual effects during construction


17.5.68 Effect of construction activities the LondonView Management Framework (LVMF) view17A.1 and 17A.2 from Hungerford Bridgeupstream.

GLA 1 We recognise that the townscape value of this site is highand is subject to a number of policy designations. Apreliminary assessment of likely significant townscape andvisual effects has been undertaken and is presented in thePEIR(volume 20, section 11). We are developing thisfurther with a townscape and visual impact assessment aspart of our environmental impact assessment that will besubmitted with our DCO application. This will identify anylikely significant effects of our proposed constructionactivities, and any mitigation required to address sucheffects. The PIERstates that the site falls within the LVMFlinear view 9A.1 (King Henry VII's Mound, Richmond to StPaul's Cathedral) and that the site falls below the frame ofthis view. We note that LVMF river prospect view 17A.1 and17A.2 from Hungerford Bridge upstream would be

unobstructed under our agreed viewpoint 2.3.

We intend that the Tattershall Castle would be permanentlyrelocated as near to the current location as possible, therebyminimising potential effects on local river views.

C

17.5.69 Effect of construction activities andstructures on LVMF views.

GLA 1 C

17.5.70 Effect on river views including the effect ofthe proposed re-location of the TattershallCastle.

EH 1 C

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

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

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address townscape and visual effects

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


24/43



Transport and access

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access

Table 17.5.23 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to transport and access during construction


17.5.73 Support proposed use of barges to transportmaterials.

PLA 1 Your support is noted and welcomed.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access

Table 17.5.24 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to transport and access during construction


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

- further information on the type, andnumber of vehicles that will require accessto the site and the frequency at whichaccess would be required

WCC 1 As part of our PEIR(volume 20, 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 likely significant effects on residential amenity. Aspart of the assessment we have considered the effects oflorry and (where applicable) barge transport, based on amethodology that has been discussed and agreed with theWCC and TfL. The PEIRwas available as part of our phasetwo consultation.

We acknowledge that this is a preliminary assessment. We

are 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. We expect that wewould need to strengthen or bridge over the pipe subway forpermanent and construction access to the site.

N

- access will need to be considered in termsof how the pipe subway will be crossedand likely long-term impacts of thecrossings

C

- details for the proposed transport routes,route options, lorry holding areas and thepowers Thames Water is seeking tomanage possible proposed changes totransport plans by contractors in the futurewill be required

N

- details of logistics and muck-away sitesare also required to fully consider anytransport proposals.

N

17.5.75 Cumulative transport effects arising fromother developments in the local area,including works proposed at VictoriaEmbankment, Chelsea Embankment andBlackfriars.

GLA 1 N

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

GLA, 9055 2 The work site that we propose for construction would requirea temporary diversion to the Thames Path along thenorthern footway of the Victoria Embankment, as indicatedin the site information paper. The diversion would ensurethat a safe route along Victoria Embankment could remainopen during construction. The detailed route would beagreed with the WCC and TfL. The proposed diversionwould remain for the duration of the works, after which thecurrent Thames Path route would be reinstated.

N


25/43




17.5.77 Construction traffic will cause trafficcongestion, particularly on the A3211.

GLA 1 At this site we propose to use barges to transport thematerials used to fill the cofferdam. We expect that thiswould reduce the number of lorry visits to/from this site byapproximately 45 per cent. Road access to this site isproposed via the Victoria Embankment (A3211). Theproposed construction access arrangements would maintaintwo-way traffic along Victoria Embankment (A3212)throughout construction by reducing road lane widths, as

detailed in the site information paper. It is expected that atthe peak of construction (year two), an average of 23 lorrieswould visit (travelling to and from) the site each working day,as indicated in the PEIR(volume 20, section 12).

We are reviewing the proposed routes that constructiontraffic would use in our transport assessment that will alsoassess cumulative transport effects of traffic associated withother developments in the local area. The developments tobe assessed will be agreed with TfL and local highwaysauthorities. If the transport assessment identifies any likelysignificant effects arising from congestion we would developmitigation measures to minimise any disruption.

We are also developing a CoCP(a draft was provided aspart of our phase two consultation), which will include arequirement for a Traffic management planto ensure that

construction traffic is carefully controlled to minimise anypotential likely significant effects on the road networkincluding access to the local area, as well as setting outconstruction traffic routes, site access/egress points,signage and monitoring procedures.

N

17.5.78 Proposed site access is unsuitable. LR13378 1 The proposed site access is illustrated in our site informationpaper and a preliminary assessment of the likely significanttransport effects is set out in our PEIR(volume 20, section12). We believe that the site access is suitable and canaccommodate the level of traffic anticipated at this site.

N

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

GLA 1 We do not currently intend to close Victoria Embankment asit is a key element of the road network. The proposedconstruction access arrangements would maintain two-waytraffic along Victoria Embankment (A3212) by reducing road

lane widths, as detailed in the site information paper. Sometemporary road closures would be required elsewhereduring construction. The Traffic management planthat weare currently developing will set out details of the roads thatwould be closed and the process for notifying closures. Ourtransport assessment will also consider the likely significanteffects of any closures during the construction period andidentify any mitigation measures that would be required. Wewill work closely with the WCC and TfL in developing theproposals and would notify any affected parties.

N


26/43




17.5.80 Effect of construction traffic on road safety. GLA 1 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),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

setting out construction traffic routes, site access/egresspoints, signage and monitoring procedures. The proposalswill be subject to independent external review by TfL and thelocal highway authority to ensure proposed highway layoutsand vehicle movement arrangements are as safe aspossible.

N

17.5.81 Effect of construction traffic on the safety ofpedestrians, cyclists and local residents dueto narrow carriage widths on theEmbankment.

GLA 1 N

17.5.82 Effect of transporting material by barge onriver navigation and commercial river usesincluding river passenger services atEmbankment Pier.

GLA 1 The impact of the temporary structure on navigation in theriver is the subject of on-going studies and a navigationalrisk assessment, which will consider navigation of vesselsfrom the nearby Embankment Pier. Where this is shown tohave an adverse effect on navigational safety, we willamend our proposals or provide appropriate mitigation inconsultation with the PLA.

N

17.5.83 Effect of structures required to enable river

transport (eg cofferdams) on river navigationand commercial transport, includingproposal to moor barges at right angles tothe tidal stream is unacceptable in terms ofnavigational safety.

PLA 1 The impact of the structure on navigation in the river is the

subject of on-going studies and a navigational riskassessment. Where this is shown to have an adverse effecton navigational safety, we will amend our proposals orprovide appropriate mitigation in agreement with the PLA.We will review our proposals to moor a barge perpendicularto the tidal stream.

C

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

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

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access

Table 17.5.25 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects of transport and access during construction


17.5.85 More information is needed on mitigation,

including effects on safety for road users.

GLA 1 We would design site accesses and operate all of our

construction 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),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 proposals will besubject to independent external review by TfL and the local

N


27/43




highway authority to ensure proposed highway layouts andvehicle movement arrangements are as safe as possible.

17.5.86 Provide a suitable and safe Thames Pathdiversion with carefully designed pedestriancrossings and diversionary signage agreedwith TfL.

GLA 1 The Thames Path would be temporarily diverted via a safealternative route along the northern footpath to VictoriaEmbankment (A3211. Our footpath diversions would bedesigned to meet all appropriate design and safetystandards and would be agreed with TfL and the WCC.

N

17.5.87 Make alternative car and coach parkingprovision.

GLA 1 We will consider the demand for the existing coach parkingand possible alternative locations as part of the Transportassessmentthat will be prepared for submission with ourDCO application. We will discuss any alternative provisionwith TfL and the WCC and report our conclusions as part ofthe Transport assessmentthat will be submitted with ourDCO application.

N

17.5.88 Undertake fluvial modelling to identifypotential effects of river transport andassociated structures on river flows.

PLA 1 We are undertaking fluvial modelling and preliminaryfindings have informed the design of the site. Furthermodelling will be used to refine the designs whereappropriate, and will inform the Environmental statementthat will be part of our DCO application. The modellingstudies will also support agreements with owners of thirdparty assets, where relevant.

N

17.5.89 Undertake a navigational assessment to

identify potential effects of river transport onriver users and structures.

PLA, 8853, LR9273 3 We are preparing a Navigational risk assessmentas part of

our DCO application, the approach to which is beingdiscussed with the PLA. Preliminary discussions with thePLA have also informed the design of the site.

N

17.5.90 Use the river to transport more/allconstruction materials and excavatedmaterial to avoid additional traffic on theroad network.

GLA, PLA, WCC, LR9236 4 We intend to use the river to bring in and take awaymaterials used to fill the cofferdam, as detailed in our siteinformation paper. However, it is not generally practical andcost-effective to transport all materials by barge so we wouldstill need to transport some materials by road. At this site,use of barges would remove approximately 16,000 lorriesfrom the road during the construction. We are consideringopportunities to transport more materials from this site bybarge. This matter will be the subject of targetedconsultation for this site.

N

17.5.91 Complete a transport assessment. GLA 1 We are preparing a Transport assessmentthat will be

submitted as part of our DCO application. This will include adetailed analysis of potential access routes and anassessment of the likely significant effects of constructiontraffic on local roads, together with mitigation required tominimise disruption from site traffic. We will work closelywith TfL, the WCC, local residents and other interestedgroups to minimise the effects of traffic movements to andfrom the site.

N

17.5.92 Other transport and access mitigationsuggestions, including:

- existing highway capacity on A3211Victoria Embankment should bemaintained at all times. Where any lane orparking/loading capacity is required thisshould be a temporary arrangement andfor as short a period as possible tominimise disruption to road users

GLA 1 N


28/43




- further details on the operations andlogistics of the site are required regardingimplications for existing river use.

N

Water and flood risk

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to water and flood risk

17.5.93 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to water and flood risk during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to water and flood risk

17.5.94 No objections, issues or concerns were received in relation to water and flood risk during construction.

Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk

17.5.95 No supportive or neutral feedback comments were received in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction.

Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk

Table 17.5.26 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the measures proposed to address the effects on water and flood risk during construction


17.5.96 Ensure design does not cause siltation,erosion or other hydrological impacts.

GLA 1 We are carrying out fluvial modelling of the permanent andtemporary foreshore works, which have been designed insuch a way as to minimise scour. Where significant scour ispredicted we would carry out preventative measures (suchas placing riprap on the river bed), and in all locations the

riverbed would be monitored and remedial works carried outif/as required. Riprap presents a change in habitat ratherthan a loss of habitat. This will be discussed in theEnvironmental statementto be submitted with our DCOapplication.

C


29/43



17.6 Permanent design and appearance

17.6.1 This section sets out feedback comments received during phase two consultation relating to proposals for the permanent design and appearance of buildings and structures at VictoriaEmbankment Foreshore that are required for the operation of the tunnel when it is in use (the operational phase).

17.6.2 During phase two consultation, respondents were asked to give their views on the identification of site specific issues that have influenced proposals for the permanent design of VictoriaEmbankment Foreshore (see question 5 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The first part of question 5asked respondents to select agree, disagree or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in the table below.

Table 17.6.1 Do you agree that we have identified the right issues that have influenced our permanent design for this site? (Q5)




Local authorities 0

Landowners 1 1


Petitions 0

Total 4 3 0 1

17.6.3 As part of the phase two consultation, respondents were also asked to comment on proposals for the permanent design and appearance of Victoria Embankment Foreshore (see question6 of the phase two consultation feedback form, provided in appendix M of the Main report on phase two consultation). The first part of question 6 asked respondents to select supportive,opposed or dont know/unsure. Where respondents completed this part of the question, the results are set out in the table below.

Table 17.6.2 Please give us your views about our proposals for the permanent design and appearance of the site (Q6)


Total Supportive Opposed Dont know/unsure


Local authorities 0

Landowners 1 1


Petitions 0

Total 5 3 0 2

17.6.4 The following sections set out the feedback comments received from respondents in connection with proposals for the permanent design and appearance of Victoria EmbankmentForeshore. It should be noted that not all respondents who provided feedback comments provided feedback to the first part of questions 5 and 6.

17.6.5 Feedback comments are organised under the following sub-headings:

supportive and neutral comments

objections, issues and concerns

design suggestions.

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


30/43



Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site

Table 17.6.3 Supportive and neutral feedback comments in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site


17.6.7 The design/proposals areOK/fine/acceptable.

(LR)CABE 1 Your comments are noted and welcomed.

17.6.8 The design/proposals are good. 7404 1

17.6.9 Support proposals because:

- the strong orthogonal plan of the foreshoredevelopment is well judged in relation tothe linearity of the Victoria Embankment.Its asymmetry lends particular interestwhen seen in views from the south. Thisapproach could be mirrored on thedownstream side to reduce its monolithicappearance in views from HungerfordBridge. Canting the walls gives a welcomesense of strength and majesty; using thekiosks to help define the threshold into thespace is particularly well conceived.

(LR)CABE 1

17.6.10 Qualified support:- efforts have been made to minimise

residual infrastructure requirements at this

location. However, further design iterationsare necessary before this site can be saidto have been appropriately mitigated.

EH 1

17.6.11 Support for a specific design feature:- proposals to provide lighting at ground

level to minimise light spill onto the RiverThames and not detract from the nightview of the row of festoon lighting from thesouth.

WCC 1

17.6.12 Other supportive comment: you have to dowhat is necessary for the benefit of allconcerned.

7404 1 Your comments are noted.

Objections, issues and concerns

Table 17.6.4 Objections, issues and concerns in relation to the permanent design and appearance of the site


17.6.13 Do not support the design, it is unduly bulkyat present and the asymmetry does not helpits appearance.

EH 1 We note your comments on the design of our proposedproject. The design follows our project-wide principles andtakes into account comments made at phase oneconsultation, on-going discussions with consultees and ourdesign review with the Design Council CABE, whichsupported an orthogonal design for this site. Our Design

C


31/43




development report(available as part of our phase twoconsultation) sets out the principles that have informed ourdesign in more detail. We are considering our design forthis site in light of feedback from phase two consultation. Wenote that the size of the site is largely determined by ourinfrastructure requirements, but we will consider whether wecould reduce the apparent bulk of the project. Our proposalsto revise the design of the works at this site will be thesubject of targeted consultation.

17.6.14 Effect of permanent design and layout onlocal views, specifically the foreground ofview 17A.2 River Prospect: GoldenJubilee/Hungerford Footbridges: upstream,of the new revised London ViewManagement Framework (July 2010).

WCC 1 A preliminary assessment of likely significant townscape andvisual effects has been undertaken and is presented in thePEIR(volume 20, section 11). We are undertaking anenvironmental impact assessment, which will include acomprehensive townscape and visual effects assessment ofthe likely significanteffects arising from the proposals. Thefindings of the assessment, together with anyrecommendations for mitigation, will be available as part ofthe Environmental statementthat will be submitted with ourDCO application.

Our proposals to revise the design of the works at this sitewill be the subject of targeted consultation.

C

17.6.15 Effect of the permanent design and layouton the conservation area. The site is withinthe Whitehall Conservation Area, whichcontains the Victoria Embankment Gardens,Whitehall Court, the National Liberal Cluband Royal Air Force Memorial.

WCC 1 Development of designs for this site have considered thesite's location within the setting of a number of listedbuildings and the conservation area, as detailed within theDesign development reportand the Victoria EmbankmentForeshore site information paperwhich were both madeavailable at phase two consultation. An assessment of theimpact of our proposals on the historic environment is beingundertaken as part of the environmental impact assessmentprocess. Preliminary findings of our assessment wereincluded in the PEIR(volume 20), which was made availableat phase two consultation. An assessment of the likelysignificanteffects on the historic environment is beingcompleted as part of our environmental impact assessment.We are consulting with English Heritage as part of thisprocess. The findings of the assessment, together with anyrecommendations for mitigation, will be available as part ofthe Environmental statementthat will be submitted with ourDCO application. You may also wish to refer to our responseat paragraph 17.5.13.

Our proposals to revise the design of the works at this sitewill be the subject of targeted consultation.

C

supp report on p2 consultation - chapter 17 victoria embankment foreshore

Documents