121155 perfume factory nts - 02 rvg › assets › nts › rsk › perfume factory mud nt… ·...

i

PREFACE

Essential Living (North Acton) Ltd is proposing a phased, mixed-use redevelopment of The Perfume

Factory site. The development will provide approximately 534 residential units.

RSK Environment Limited has been commissioned by Essential Living (North Acton) Ltd to undertake

an environmental impact assessment of the proposed scheme. This non-technical summary reports

the findings of environmental assessments undertaken during the development of the proposed

scheme.

A copy of the Environmental Statement, together with a non-technical summary outlining the

information provided in the Environmental Statement, has been deposited at the location indicated

below and will be available for inspection during normal opening hours.

Hard copies of the Environmental Statement are subject to a charge of £250 and are available on

written request from

Mrs Alex Osborn

RSK

18 Frogmore Road

Hemel Hempstead

HP3 9RT

Hard copies of the non-technical summary are available free of charge. A digital version of the

Environmental Statement on CD-ROM can be obtained for a fee of £25.

Deposit locations:

Ealing Customer Sevices,

Perceval House,

14/16 Uxbridge Road,

Ealing W5 2HL

Expressions of support, representations or opinions should be sent to:

Barry Coltrini

Essential Living

30 Monck Street

London SW1P 2AP

E-mail: [email protected]

Website: www.theperfumefactory.info

ii

CONTENTS

PREFACE ................................................................................................................................................ I

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Background to proposed scheme ......................................................................................... 1-1

2 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Location and history ............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Landform and topography .................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Settlement and transportation pattern .................................................................................. 2-1

2.4 Land use ............................................................................................................................... 2-2

2.5 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................. 2-2

2.6 Socio-economics .................................................................................................................. 2-2

3 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Scope and methodology ....................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Predicted impacts ................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.4 Mitigation .............................................................................................................................. 3-3

Construction Phase Mitigation ...................................................................................................... 3-3

Operation Phase Mitigation .......................................................................................................... 3-3

4 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE ........................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4-1


4.3 Existing environment ............................................................................................................ 4-2


4.5 Mitigation .............................................................................................................................. 4-4

4.6 Summary of effects............................................................................................................... 4-5

5 DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT ....................................................................................................... 5-6

5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5-6




5.5 Mitigation .............................................................................................................................. 5-7

5.6 Summary of effects............................................................................................................... 5-8

6 ECOLOGY .................................................................................................................................... 6-9

6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 6-9



6.4 Predicted impacts ............................................................................................................... 6-10

6.5 Mitigation ............................................................................................................................ 6-11

6.6 Summary of effects............................................................................................................. 6-12

7 FLOOD RISK AND DRAINAGE ................................................................................................ 7-13

7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 7-13

7.2 Scope and methodology ..................................................................................................... 7-13

7.3 Existing environment .......................................................................................................... 7-13


7.5 Mitigation ............................................................................................................................ 7-13


iii

8 GROUND CONDITIONS AND CONTAMINATION ................................................................... 8-15

8.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 8-15


8.3 Existing environment .......................................................................................................... 8-15


8.5 Mitigation ............................................................................................................................ 8-16


9 NOISE ......................................................................................................................................... 9-17

9.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 9-17



9.4 Mitigation ............................................................................................................................ 9-18

10 SOCIO-ECONOMICS ............................................................................................................... 10-19

10.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 10-19

10.2 Predicted impacts ............................................................................................................. 10-19

11 TOWNSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT .................................................................................... 11-20

11.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 11-20

11.2 Scope and methodology ................................................................................................... 11-20

11.3 Existing environment ........................................................................................................ 11-20


11.5 Summary of effects........................................................................................................... 11-22

12 TRANSPORT AND TRAVEL PLANNING ............................................................................... 12-23

12.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 12-23




12.5 Mitigation .......................................................................................................................... 12-26


13 WIND ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................................. 13-28

13.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 13-28




13.5 Mitigation .......................................................................................................................... 13-29


14 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ......................................................................................................... 14-31

14.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 14-31

14.2 Committed developments ................................................................................................. 14-31

14.3 Mitigation .......................................................................................................................... 14-31


15 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS ............................................................ 15-34

15.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 15-34

1-1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to proposed scheme

1.1.1 Essential Living (North Acton) Ltd (hereafter ‘the applicant’) is proposing a mixed-use

redevelopment of the Perfume Factory, North Acton.

1.1.2 The Proposed Development is a phased, mixed-use redevelopment of The Perfume Factory

site. The development will provide approximately 550 residential units and up to 79,000 sq ft

(7,300m2) of commercial space. The site covers 1.15 hectares.

1.1.3 The specialist environmental assessment and ES chapters have been prepared by the

following companies:

• CgMs Consulting (Planning Consultants and Archaeology and Cultural heritage)

• Malcolm Hollis (Sunlight and Daylight Assessment)

• Robert Bird and Partners (Flood Risk and Drainage)

• Peter Stewart (Townscape)

• Peter Brett (Transport and Socio-Economics)

• RWDI Wind Engineers (Wind Assessment)

• RSK (Air Quality, Ecology, Geoscience and Noise)

2-1

2 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

2.1 Location and history

2.1.1 The site is characterised by the mix of uses surrounding the site, which include offices,

residential and student accommodation, large areas of industrial estate and the Gypsy

Corner Gyratory, which dominates the local area with heavy traffic flows. The A40 Western

Avenue passes through North Acton, south of the site, which is a major route into Central

London and carries a large number of vehicles.

2.1.2 The site is located on the northeastern corner of the gyratory, with frontage onto Victoria

Road.

2.1.3 The site is currently used for office accommodation, housed in two buildings formerly used

as a perfume factory. There are a total of 170 car parking spaces, of which 69 are

contracted for use by Carphone Warehouse (located to the south west of the site). There

are two vehicular access points located along the Victoria Road frontage, both of which are

simple priority junctions.

2.2 Landform and topography

2.2.1 The site is generally level at an approximate elevation of 36m AOD. However, a slope, c.3-

5m high, is present along the eastern boundary, beyond which it slopes downwards towards

the east.

2.2.2 The immediate surroundings are predominantly characterised by the commercial/industrial

buildings, with residential properties located adjacent to the sites southern boundary.

2.2.3 Published geological records for the area indicate that the site is underlain with a thick layer

of London Clay..

2.3 Settlement and transportation pattern

2.3.1 The A40 passes to the south of the site and is a major dual carriageway radial route into

Central London. It forms part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) managed

by TfL. The southern section of Victoria Road forms part of the Gypsy Corner Gyratory,

which provides access to and from the A40. The gyratory includes Victoria Road, Portal

Way, Wales Farm Road and A40 Western Avenue. With the exception of the A40, the

gyratory is a two lane one-way route that circles a major office building occupied by

Carphone Warehouse, a hotel and some small commercial units.

2.3.2 The section of Victoria Road along the frontage of the site leads northwards and westwards

from a signal controlled junction with Wales Farm Road. Both of these sections of Victoria

Road are two-way.

2.3.3 North Acton Underground Station is the closest station to the site. It is easily accessible on

foot, approximately 200m from the site boundary, via the signal controlled pedestrian

facilities at the junction of Victoria Road and Wales Farm Road.

2-2

2.4 Land use

2.4.1 The current buildings within the site are utilised as office and commercial space with the

remainder of the site used for car parking. The buildings within the site proposal were

previously utilised as a perfume factory.

2.4.2 The surrounding area is mostly a mix of industrial buildings.

2.5 Hydrology

2.5.1 The site is not located within a designated source protection zone. It is underlain by clay to

considerable depth, which prevents the movement of contaminants to the deep aquifers.

2.5.2 There are no ponds, streams or other watercourses within close proximity to the site. The

closest waterbody is the Grand Union Canal, which is approximately 1.0km north of the site.

The site does not lie within the floodplain.

2.6 Socio-economics

2.6.1 The site is surrounded by a mix of business, hotel and residential uses. The Southern

Gateway, within which the site is located, is bordered by the Park Royal employment area to

the north, residential areas to the south, and the A40 and rail lines. Old Oak Common

Railway Depot, which is located to the east of the site, has been identified for

redevelopment to provide a direct interchange between HS2, Crossrail and the Great

Western Main Line.

2.6.2 Data provided by the client suggests that the existing employment floorspace on the site is

occupied by businesses that currently provide 418 jobs. It is assumed that these jobs will

either be relocated elsewhere, when business leases expire, or they will be accommodated

in new space on site after the construction phase has been completed.

3-1

3 AIR QUALITY

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 This section reviews the existing air quality conditions at the proposed development site with

respect to air quality standards and objectives, national planning policy guidance and local

policies.

3.2 Scope and methodology

3.2.1 The approach taken for assessing the potential air quality impacts of the proposed

development may be summarised as follows:

• correspondence with the local authority on the proposed development in terms of air

quality;

• baseline characterisation of local air quality;

• qualitative impact assessment of construction phase of the development;

• advanced dispersion modelling assessment of air quality impacts of the proposed

development operation under the following four scenarios:

i. ‘Base case’ scenario representing the ‘existing’ air quality situation in 2014;

ii. ‘Future base case’ scenario (2021, the expected year of opening, with no

developments in place);

iii. ‘With development’ scenario (2021, the expected year of opening, with the proposed

development in place);

iv. ‘With cumulative development’ scenario (2021, the expected year of opening, with the

proposed development in place and other local committed developments);

• recommendation of mitigation measures, where appropriate, to ensure any adverse

effects on air quality are minimised; and,

• identification of residual impacts resulting from the proposed development.

3.3 Predicted impacts

3.3.1 Impacts from the proposed development on local air quality have the potential to occur, due

to dust emissions during construction. A Dust Management Plan (DMP) which incorporates

the best practice measures developed by the Greater London Authority (GLA) and London

Councils, will be used during the construction works at the site, to reduce the risks to local

air quality from dust..

3.3.2 The potential risk of dust impacting local air quality was predicted to be a maximum of ‘high’

during the construction phase and therefore, site specific mitigation measures have been

identified to reduce this risk.

3.3.3 The principal air quality impact, once the proposed development is complete and occupied,

is likely to be emissions from the CHP and boiler plants, proposed as the energy source for

the development.

3-2

3.3.4 The predicted long-term concentrations of particulates (PM10 and PM2.5) and short-term

concentrations of NO2, PM10 and CO,, at all of the assessed receptors and for all modelled

scenarios, would not exceed the relevant air quality objectives. However, long-term

concentrations of NO2 have been predicted to exceed the air quality objectives at existing

and proposed sensitive receptors.

3.3.5 The air quality impact assessment predicted that the impact on air quality, as a result of the

development, will be‘negligible’ with regard to the average NO2, PM10 and PM2.5

concentrations on the sensitive receptors.

3.3.6 When assessing the cumulative effects of development (i.e. considering the effects as a

result of the proposed development in combination with other existing and committed

developments), the air quality impact, as per the relevant guidance, is classified as

‘negligible’ to ‘substantial’ for yearly average concentrations of NO2. . This is because of the

increase in road traffic emissions within an area of existing poor air quality and where yearly

average concentrations of NO2 are already predicted to be high. In these cases the effects

are overwhelmingly due to the other ‘cumulative’ developments. Annual average

concentrations of other pollutants (PM10 and PM2.5) are predicted to be within the air

quality objectives with a ‘negligible’ to ‘slight’ effect on air quality predicted.

3.3.7 The effects of the proposed development, alone, on local air quality is ‘not significant’,

however the effects of the development on the yearly average NO2, when considered in

combination with other committed developments (the cumulative effect), may be ‘significant’.

3.3.8 The air quality impact assessment, also indicates that receptors at numerous lower levels of

the proposed development are predicted to experience concentrations of NO2 above the

objective values, however concentrations of PM10, PM2.5 and CO at proposed

development receptors, are not predicted to exceed the objective.

3.3.9 Mitigation measures which are likely be required once the development is operational,

include locating ventilation inlets as high up on each proposed building as possible to avoid

air quality issues from road traffic sources. Operational mitigation measures could include

building design measures such as mechanical ventilation and non-openable windows,

consideration of rear ventilation and/or movement of non-habitable rooms closer to the

locations of pollution sources. Such measures will ensure that the proposed development

does not introduce new exposures, with regard to air quality and the development should be

considered ‘not significant’.

3.3.10 The emissions of NOx from the boilers specified for the developmet meet the requirements

of the Sustainable Design and Construction SPG. However, as the emission concentration

for the CHP is above the standard for spark ignition engines for a development of this scale,

mitigation measures will be employed to reduce the concentration. With the implementation

of the appropriate measures, emission standards would be met; and therefore the effects of

the CHP on local air quality, mitigated.

3.3.11 An air quality neutral assessment has been undertaken for the proposed development which

identified that the development’s emissions are below the Building and Transport Emission

Benchmarks for NOx and PM10 and further action is not considered to be required and the

proposed development is classified to be ‘air quality neutral’.

3-3

3.4 Mitigation

Construction Phase Mitigation

3.4.1 The dust emitted from the activities outlined above will be effectively controlled by

appropriate dust control measures and any adverse affects can be greatly reduced or

eliminated.

3.4.2 Prior to the commencement of demolition/construction activities, it is anticipated that an

agreement on the scope of a dust management plan (DMP) for the construction phase will

be reached with the local authority to ensure that the potential for adverse environmental

effects on local receptors is minimised. The DMP should include inter alia, measures for

controlling dust and general pollution from site construction operations and details of any

monitoring scheme. Controls applied throughout the construction period will ensure that

emissions are mitigated.

3.4.3 The dust risk categories identified are used to define appropriate, site-specific mitigation

methods in addition to the mitigation measures employed on construction sites, as good

practice.

3.4.4 The traffic effects of the proposed development during the construction phase will be limited

to a relatively short period and will be along traffic routes employed by haulage/construction

vehicles and workers. Any effects on air quality will be temporary i.e. during the construction

and demolition phases only and can be suitably controlled by the employment of mitigation

measures appropriate to the development project

Operation Phase Mitigation

3.4.5 The assessment recommends the installation of mitigation measures into the design,

including locating ventilation inlets as high up on each proposed building as possible to

avoid air quality issues from road traffic sources; providing mechanical ventilation with non-

openable windows, employing rear ventilation and/or moving non-habitable rooms closer to

the locations of pollution sources.

4-1

4 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 CgMs Consulting, has provided the archaeology and cultural heritage elements of the

Environmental Statement.

4.1.2 Appendix D1 in Volume 3 of the ES reproduces the baseline below ground archaeological

Desk Based Assessment for the site, which should be referred to for any further details

regarding below ground heritage assets. Appendix D2 reproduces the baseline for Built

Heritage within a Heritage Statement, addressing above ground heritage assets both within

and surrounding the site. These appendices should be referred to for any further details

regarding heritage assets. Each should be addressed before and during reading the

Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ES chapter.

4.1.3 The archaeological Desk Based Assessment and Heritage Statement form baseline reports

which identify both designated and non-designated heritage assets likely to be affected by

the proposals, including where relevant, any predicted impact upon their significance and

settings.


4.2.1 The archaeological Desk Based Assessment, Heritage Statement and ES chapter have

been prepared in line with all relevant guidelines, including those provided by the Chartered

Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) and Historic England.

4.2.2 In assessing the site’s below ground heritage potential, the following datasets have been

reviewed:

• A 1.5kilometre search of information held on the Greater London Historic

Environment

• Record (GLHER);

• Relevant maps held at the British Library;

• Relevant maps and background information from Ealing Local Studies Library;

• Relevant published and unpublished sources covering the archaeology of the

surrounding area.

4.2.3 The assessment assumes the accuracy of the datasets reviewed in its compilation, i.e. the

GLHER and geological data, together with information from relevant archives etc. The

information included within Appendix D2 provides an indication of assets present rather than

a definitive list of all assets likely to be present, because the full extent of below ground

heritage assets cannot be known prior to site-specific archaeological field investigation.

4.2.4 The principal limitation to the assessment of impacts on below ground heritage assets is the

nature of the archaeological resource – buried and therefore not visible – which means it

can be difficult to predict accurately the presence and likely significance of below ground

heritage assets, and the impact of Development upon such assets, based primarily on desk-

based sources.

4.2.5 Where site specific archaeological information has not been available, professional

judgement has been used to assess the archaeological potential of the site as set out in

4-2

Appendix D1 by a combination of the review of available information, in particular data from

the GLHER, together with past and current land use as shown on cartographic and pictorial

sources.

4.2.6 In addition to the aforementioned archaeological scope and methodology, this assessment

takes into consideration both designated and non-designated above ground heritage assets

within both the site boundary and environs of the site, the setting and significance of which

may be affected by the Proposed Development.

4.2.7 The site itself includes no Statutorily Listed Buildings and is not included within a designated

Conservation Area. However, the heavily altered warehouse building within the northern end

of the site is considered to be a non-designated heritage asset and is noted as being of local

significance by the London Borough of Ealing Council, all other buildings on site have been

confirmed as having no individual or contributory heritage significance.

4.2.8 Given the nature of the proposals it was considered appropriate to consider the heritage

baseline beyond the immediate confines of the site. In order to provide a thorough

assessment of the Proposed Development’s impact on the historic environment, an

assessment baseline of designated built heritage assets within a 2 kilometre radius, and

non-designated built heritage assets within a 1 kilometre radius of the site.

4.2.9 Heritage assets are recorded in national and/or local historic environment records and in this

instance have been identified from Historic England’s List, in the London Borough of

Hammersmith and Fulham Council’s and London Borough of Ealing Council’s schedule of

buildings of local historic importance and in further online Conservation Area mapping

provided by all further relevant local planning authorities (London Borough of Brent).

4.2.10 In accordance with adopted Historic England guidance and the overarching National

Planning Policy Framework (March, 2012) the Heritage Statement and ES chapter consider

all above ground designated and non-designated heritage assets including: World Heritage

Sites; Statutorily Listed Buildings; Conservation Areas; Scheduled Ancient Monuments;

Registered Parks and Gardens; and Locally Listed Buildings. Further details of the

assessment scope, methodology and heritage asset map are included within the Heritage

Statement set out in Appendix D2.

4.2.11 It was initially observed that, save for the major beneficial impact upon the Perfume Factory

itself, any likely impact upon the identified above ground heritage assets was likely to be

through indirect setting impacts. In assessing the indirect effects of development on the

above ground heritage assets, such as setting, an assessment methodology has been used

which is based on adopted guidance on setting Historic Environment Good Practice Advice

in Planning: Note 3 (GPA3): The Setting of Heritage Assets (March, 2015) and in particular

the definition of the term which is set out in the policy section of the associated chapter

(paragraph 7.5.14).

4.3 Existing environment

4.3.1 In terms of below ground designated heritage assets, as defined above and as shown on

Figure 2 in Appendix D2, no Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Historic Battlefield or Historic

Wreck Sites have been identified within the 1.5km study area site radius. Furthermore the

site is not located within an Archaeological Priority Area as defined by the London Borough

of Ealing.

4-3

4.3.2 Geologically the site lies within a large area of London Clay. Site specific geotechnical

information has indicated significant quantities of made ground at the site.

4.3.3 Topographically the site lies level with spot heights of 36.4m AOD and 36.5m AOD. No

watercourses or naturally occurring bodies of water are known within the vicinity of the site.

4.3.4 The site is currently occupied by a twentieth century industrial facility, originally constructed

in 1939 with later additions and alterations.

4.3.5 Archaeological finds and features of Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age, Roman

and Medieval date have been identified within the 1.5 kilometre study area search radius.

However, these finds have typically been identified at some distance from the site itself, in

areas of brick earth and gravels which are typically considered much more conducive to

early exploitation and settlement than the London Clay upon within which the site lies.

4.3.6 The map evidence for the site indicates that the site lay undeveloped until the early

twentieth century, with industrial facilities and a sports ground present by 1935. The

Perfume Factory at the site was constructed for Elizabeth Arden in 1939, with further

extensions later in the twentieth century.

4.3.7 Overall the archaeological potential of the site is considered likely to be low for all past

periods of human activity, and the impact of previous and existing development is

considered likely to have been severe.

4.3.8 Further information relating to the sites archaeological potential including a comprehensive

map regression exercise is contained in the below ground archaeological Desk Based

Assessment reproduced at Appendix D1.

4.3.9 In addition to the aforementioned archaeological assessment of the existing environment,

the ES chapter and the associated Heritage Statement included within Appendix XXX take

into consideration all above ground heritage assets within the site boundary itself, as well as

designated heritage assets within a 2 kilometre radius, and non-designated heritage assets

within a 1 kilometre radius of the site.

4.3.10 As aforementioned, the site itself includes no Statutorily Listed Buildings and is not included

within a designated Conservation Area. However, the heavily altered late-1930s warehouse

building (Perfume Factory) within the northern end of the site is considered to be a non-

designated heritage asset and is noted as being of local significance by the London Borough

of Ealing Council, all other buildings on site have been confirmed as having no individual or

contributory heritage significance. Further detailed analysis into the site history and

significance is outlined within the Heritage Statement included within Appendix D2.

4.3.11 Given the nature of the proposals it was considered appropriate to consider the heritage

baseline beyond the immediate confines of the site. As a result a number of designated and

non-designated above ground heritage assets have been identified in the vicinity of the Site.

These included the following:

• 1 Registered Park and Garden (Grade I and almost 2km away);

• 32 Listed Buildings (5 Grade II* and 27 Grade II, all located over 1.2km away) and 9

are located outside of a Conservation Area;

• 13 Conservation Areas, 1 located in London Borough of Brent, 4 in London Borough

of Hammersmith and Fulham and 8 in London Borough of Ealing (overall only 5 of

which are under 1.3km away).

4-4

• 3 Locally Listed Buildings located within a 1 kilometre radius of the site of the site,

one of which includes the Perfume Factory Itself.

4.3.12 Notably, both a Statutorily Listed Building (Berrymead Priory) and Locally Listed Building

(No 33-34 Cloister Road) included in the above bullet points have been demolished, yet are

included within outdated national and local lists. This has been acknowledged within the

Heritage Statement set out in an Appendix of the ES..

4.3.13 Further detailed analysis of the location, status, significance and setting of these built

heritage assets can be obtained from the Heritage Statement


4.4.1 Assessments of both above ground, built heritage assets and below ground, archaeological

assessments have been carried out in accordance with all relevant standards and

guidelines.

4.4.2 Due to the site’s perceived low archaeological potential combined with the perceived impact

of previous and existing development, the predicted impact of the development is

considered likely to be negligible in archaeological terms.

4.4.3 In addition, following a detailed site visit and comprehensive review it was clear that the

significance and setting of all of the aforementioned above ground heritage assets (identified

in Tables 7.4-7.6) would remain unaltered by the proposals due to their removed location,

setting and overall nature. This clearly indicates that the significance of any effect

(constructional or operational) would therefore be neutral. This is explained within the

Heritage Statement set out in Appendix D2 and formalised within Tables 7.7-7.10 for the

purpose of the associated ES chapter.

4.4.4 Whilst it is acknowledged that there will be a moderate adverse effect on the Perfume

Factory itself (as a non-designated heritage asset) as a result of the impacts from

construction, these will be of minor adverse significance and temporary in nature.

Furthermore, when completed and occupied, the effects of the proposals on the Perfume

Factory will be major beneficial indirect and direct effects and therefore moderate

(beneficial) in significance and outcome.

4.5 Mitigation

4.5.1 Due to the site’s perceived low archaeological potential, combined with the perceived

negative impact of existing and proposed development, no further archaeological mitigation

measures are necessary in this instance. This has been confirmed through consultation with

GLAAS through the Scoping.

4.5.2 Similarly, no negative construction, operation or cumulative impacts (direct or indirect) upon

the setting or significance of above ground heritage assets are considered applicable in this

case. As noted in paragraph 4.4.3 this is largely due to removed location of these assets

and their relative individual settings that define and contribute to their significance and

appreciation.

4.5.3 Furthermore, the significance of the constructional effects upon the Perfume Factory are

temporary in nature and the significance of operational effects are beneficial in outcome.

Therefore, mitigation is not necessary or possible in this case.

4-5

4.6 Summary of effects

4.6.1 The Archaeology and Cultural Heritage chapter of the Environmental Statement

presents an assessment of the potential for below ground heritage assets

(archaeological remains) at the site. In addition, the potential impact upon all above

ground built heritage assets within and beyond the immediate confines of the site has

been assessed.

4.6.2 The site does not contain any nationally significant below ground designated heritage

assets, or any known undesignated below ground heritage assets. It does not lie within

an Archaeological Priority Area as defined by the London Borough of Ealing.

4.6.3 The site is perceived to have a generally low archaeological potential for all past periods

of human activity and the impacts of previous and existing development is considered

likely to have been severe.

4.6.4 No further archaeological mitigation measures are therefore considered necessary for

this site. This has been confirmed in writing from LB Ealing’s archaeological advisors.

4.6.5 Furthermore, following a detailed site visit and comprehensive review it was clear that

save for the effect of the proposals upon on the Perfume Factory itself, the significance

and setting of all of the aforementioned above ground heritage assets would remain

unaltered by the proposals due to their removed location, setting and overall nature.

This clearly indicates that the overall significance of any impact would therefore be

neutral.

4.6.6 Fundamentally, it has been found that the proposals would not affect the special

interest, underlying heritage significance or setting of any of the identified above ground

heritage assets.

5-6

5 DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 This Chapter summarises the assessment of the potential effects of the Proposed

Development on daylight and sunlight availability, together with overshadowing on

existing and proposed residential properties and amenity spaces. The assessment has

regard to the likely effects of the Proposed Development on the neighbouring residential

properties and the proposed residential properties and amenity spaces within the

Proposed Development.

5.1.2 The Chapter summarises the relevant planning policies and guidance applicable to the

assessment, the methods used to assess the potential effects and the baseline

conditions at the Site. The potential effects of the Proposed Development have been

assessed in respect of relevant target criteria, the mitigation measures required to

prevent, reduce or offset adverse effects are explained and the significance of the

resulting residual effects is stated.


5.2.1 Daylight, sunlight and overshadowing each have a range of threshold criteria that are

used to assess whether or not the Proposed Development will have an adverse effect

on existing receptors. These criteria are presented below and are based on BRE

guidance.

Daylight

5.2.2 The BRE Report sets out a variety of assessment methods, including:

(i) Vertical Sky Component (VSC) method; and

(ii) Average Daylight Factor (ADF).

5.2.3 The VSC method measures the amount of light available on the outside plane of the

centre of the window as a ratio (expressed as a percentage) of the amount of total

unobstructed sky viewable following the introduction of visible barriers such as

buildings.

5.2.4 The ADF method is derived from BS 8206 and is a more complex and accurate

calculation to determine natural internal illumination that takes into account not only the

VSC, but also such factors as window size, number of windows available to the room,

room size, glass transmittance and room surface reflectance.

Sunlight

5.2.5 Potential effects on available sunlight were assessed using the BRE’s Annual Probable

Sunlight Hours (APSH) method. This method involves the prediction of sunlight

availability throughout the year and in the winter months, for the main window of each

habitable room that faces within 90 degrees of due south.

5.2.6 The buildings surrounding or adjacent to the Site that do not contain windows within 90

degrees of due south, are excluded from the sunlight assessment.

5-7

Overshadowing

5.2.7 The BRE Report provides sunlight availability criteria for open spaces. In particular it

gives guidance for calculating any areas of open space that may be in permanent

shadow on 21st March. The test determined whether at least half of the area receives

sunlight for a minimum period of 2 hours on that date.

5.2.8 The analysis of overshadowing by the Proposed Development has been conducted

using an electronic 3D model of the Proposed Development, existing buildings and

surrounding area using AutoCAD 2014.

5.2.9 Commercial premises such as offices and shops are deemed by the BRE to have less

of a requirement for daylight and sunlight and have therefore generally been excluded

from assessment. Access to the internal areas of the external properties tested was not

available.


5.3.1 The Site lies to the east of Wales Farm Road, the Central line is located to the north,

Victoria Industrial Estate to the east and Conway Grove to the south.

5.3.2 The existing conditions for daylight and sunlight are good in as much as the Site is

generally under developed.

5.3.3 The open prospects enjoyed from many of the existing buildings surrounding the Site

are receiving high levels of daylight and sunlight. The present underdeveloped nature

of the Site will therefore need to be borne in mind when reviewing the comparison

results.


5.4.1 The potential direct effects of the completed Development on daylight, sunlight and

overshadowing could include:

(i) Reducing the quantity of daylight available in neighbouring residential

buildings;

(ii) Reducing the number of hours of sunlight to rooms in buildings near to the

Site;

(iii) Provision of new dwellings with inadequate levels of daylight and sunlight

availability; and

(iv) Overshadowing of all or part of existing and proposed open areas.

5.5 Mitigation

5.5.1 Preliminary testing of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing was undertaken in

conjunction with the design team on various iterations of the scheme design as they

were being developed. In summary, it is considered that the height and Site layout of

the proposed Development have been carefully considered to respect the scale of

existing development and street frontage and these factors, particularly in city centre

locations, often conflict to a degree with daylight and sunlight targets.

5-8

5.5.2 Further mitigation measures which may be considered are summarised below:

• For daylight and sunlight to the existing surrounding buildings:

o The design will continue to evolve and further mitigating factors will be

considered and incorporated as necessary.

• For daylight and sunlight availability to the proposed buildings:

o Principal windows, where practicable, will be sited away from locations

where poor natural light availability is found;

o Balconies which are sited over principal windows should be avoided

where possible;

o For daylight availability, where practicable, multiple windows should be

utilised; and

o For sunlight availability, multiple windows should be adopted, particularly

on multiple elevations, where possible.


Daylight

5.6.1 With regard to the existing surrounding buildings, residual daylight effects ranging from

moderate to substantial adverse significance will be noticeable to 5 of the 10 buildings

analysed. However, most of the effects are negligible to moderate adverse in

significance, with only some 24 of 116 windows analysed being subject to substantial

adverse effects.

5.6.2 Daylight tests undertaken to the proposed buildings indicate that a small proportion of

effects will arise and the overall effect is considered to be negligible in significance.

Sunlight

5.6.3 In relation to sunlight to the existing surrounding buildings, residual effects are not found

to any of the buildings tested.

5.6.4 Sunlight tests to the proposed buildings indicate a small proportion of effects will arise

ranging from negligible to substantial adverse in nature, however, mitigation may be

introduced at the detailed design stage, meaning the significance is considered

negligible.

Overshadowing

5.6.5 The overshadowing analyses concluded that there will be no residual effect to the

external gardens and amenity areas.

6-9

6 ECOLOGY

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 This section provides a summary of the Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA), which has

been conducted following the Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment published by the

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM 2006). The chapter was written

by Corin Simmonds CEcol MCIEEM of RSK and sets out the ecological baseline of the site

and any predicted impacts before and after mitigation.


6.2.1 A summary of all surveys undertaken to inform this assessment to date is provided in the

table below. Details of the surveys, including full methods, are provided in the Ecology

Technical Appendix to the main Environmental Statement. Surveys were carried out at

appropriate times of the year by suitably experienced and licensed ecologists.

Survey Type Details of Survey Month/ Year

Ecological Background data search

Data search of freely obtained material and records from the local record centre.

December 2014

Phase 1 Habitat Survey and animal walkover

Identification of broad habitat types and of habitat suitability for protected animal species

October 2014

Bats (tree/building roost potential)

Survey of trees and buildings to assess suitability for bats

October 2014

Bats (emergence survey) Dusk emergence survey of suitable features in the building for roosting bats

April 2015

6.2.2 The impact assessment for ecology follows the Chartered Institute of Ecology and

Environmental Management (CIEEM) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the

UK, hereafter referred to as the IEEM Guidelines (2006). The guidelines are endorsed by

interested statutory and non-statutory organisations including Natural England, Scottish

Natural Heritage, The Environment Agency, Environment and Heritage Service, Association

of Local Government Ecologists (ALGAE), Institute of Environmental Management and

Assessment (IEMA) and the Wildlife Trusts. The IEEM Guidelines are also referenced in

the planning guidance ‘Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: A Guide to

Good Practice’ (ODP, 2005) 13 as the recommended procedure for the ecological

component of EIA.

6.2.3 There were no significant constraints to the surveys.


6.3.1 Background Data

6.3.2 There is one statutory designated site within 2km of the site boundary.

6.3.3 Wormwood Scrubs LNR is 470 m east of the application site. It consists of plantation

woodland, grassland (which holds a population of Common Lizard (Zootoca vivipara)) and

scrub. Overall the site holds over 100 species of birds and 20 species of butterfly.

6-10

6.3.4 There are eight non-statutory designated sites located within 2km of the site boundary;

6.3.5 Records were returned for a total of fifteen protected species of which the following are

considered to be relevant to the site as the habitats on the site may be suitable. See

Ecology Technical Appendix 9.1 of the main ES, for full records.

6.3.6 Habitats

6.3.7 The site consists mainly of hard standing surrounding two commercial buildings and a small

storage building, with a few scattered coniferous trees a Leyalndii hedge and a laurel hedge.

There is a scrub and tree covered embankment located east of the site, which comprises

ruderal plants and the invasive plants Fallopia japonica (Japanese Knotweed) and

Heracleum mantegazzianum (Giant Hogweed). There are small areas of ornamental

planting throughout the site all contained within pots or small borders.

6.3.8 Species

6.3.9 There is no habitat on site suitable for Dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius), Badger (Meles

meles), Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus), reptiles Water vole (Arvicola amphibious) or

Otter (Lutra lutra). Therefore, these species have been scoped out of this assessment.

6.3.10 Bats

6.3.11 The initial bat survey identified that the buildings generally and the surrounding habitat were

not suitable for roosting bats. However, there are two deep barge boards on the north-

eastern corner of the site under which bats could crawl and roost. These were assessed as

having low potential. The dusk emergence survey did not reveal any bats emerging from the

building and no bats using the site. For this reason the site is considered to be of limited

ecological value for bats.

6.3.12 Nesting Birds

6.3.13 Habitat suitable for nesting birds on the site is limited to the laurel and ‘Leylandii’ hedgerows

on the boundaries of the site. The building is generally in good condition and any potential

gaps or perches have been made unsuitable due to past problems with pigeons. Due to the

urban nature of the site it is likely that if birds do use the hedgerows on the site or the trees

off the site it will be very low numbers of common species only. The site is considered to be

of limited ecological value for nesting birds.


6.4.1 Effects during construction and operation are only considered for VERs of importance at the

Local level or above or where there is a risk of an illegal action. Potential impacts at the Site

level or below are not considered.

Designated Sites

6.4.2 Sites designated for ecology are over 1 km away from the proposed development and

isolated from the site by urban areas and roads. It is therefore certain/near certain that

no significant impacts to designated sites will occur.

Habitats

6.4.3 The habitats on site are of limited ecological value so no significant impacts are

anticipated beyond the site level.

6-11

Invasive Species

6.4.4 Fallopia japonica (Japanese Knotweed) and Heracleum mantegazzianum (Giant

Hogweed) are listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as

amended) meaning it is illegal to cause them to spread. The proposed development

may result in the inadvertent spread of invasive species through earth moving and

vehicle tracking which would contravene legislation. This would result in significant

impacts at the local level with probable confidence depending on where material from

the site is taken.

Species

Roosting Bats

6.4.5 The building is not considered to contain a bat roost and therefore it is certain/near

certain that no significant impacts to roosting bats will occur during either construction

or operational.

Commuting and Foraging Bats

6.4.6 The potential foraging and commuting habitat for bats on site is limited to the linear

features on the boundary of the site. During the emergence survey of the building no

bat calls were heard and therefore removal of the vegetation is not likely to affect bat

commuting routes and there would be no significant impacts with certain / near certain

confidence.

6.4.7 During the operational phase there is the potential for disturbance to bat foraging and

commuting habitat from noise or light. As the site is already heavily lit and subject to

high levels of disturbance and as there is negligible bat activity on the site no significant

impacts are anticipated with certain / near certain confidence.

Nesting Birds

6.4.8 The removal of the boundary amenity hedgerows will result in the loss of potential

nesting sites for birds during construction. In the absence of mitigation there may be

direct impacts from disturbance or destruction of nests. This would be an illegal action,

and would be a significant negative impact at the Site level with certain/near certain

confidence.

6.5 Mitigation

Invasive Species

6.5.1 In order to prevent the unwanted spread of invasive plants during construction, an

authorised operator should clear the site of invasive plants prior to construction. This

typically involves spraying the plants for two to three seasons and making regular

checks to look for re-growth. This process is already underway on the site and with this

mitigation in place, no significant impacts through invasive species are expected.

Species

Bats

6.5.2 No mitigation is required as no significant impacts on bats are anticipated.

6-12

Nesting Birds

6.5.3 Measures will be undertaken to minimise the likelihood of disturbance to or destruction of

bird nests in use (including eggs and chicks). Vegetation to be removed for the proposed

development will preferably be removed outside the March to August period when birds are

nesting, or else nesting habitat will be searched by an ecologist prior to vegetation removal

and if nests are found then the removal will be delayed (with an appropriate buffer zone)

until the young have fledged.

6.5.4 New landscape planting will provide nesting habitat around the site to compensate for small

areas that will be removed to facilitate construction.


Receptor

s

Effect Magnitude

of Effect

Nature of

Effect

Duration

Significance of

Effect without

Mitigation

Significance

of Effect with

Mitigation

Residu

al

Effects

Invasive

species

Inadvertent

spread

during

construction

Site

(illegal)

All year Permanent Significant at

Local level but

Illegal

Not

Significant

None

Nesting

Birds

Disturbance

or destruction

of nesting

sites.

Site

(Illegal)

Seasonal Permanent Significant at

Site level only

but Illegal

Not

Significant

None

7-13

7 FLOOD RISK AND DRAINAGE

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 This section provides a summary of the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) undertaken and

impact the Proposed Development would have on the local area in terms of drainage and

flood risk, with any mitigation measures where required.


7.2.1 The methodology of the FRA consists of establishing the flood zone type, identifying

sources of flood risk, such as rivers, groundwater, rain water, collecting required information

from statutory bodies (i.e. The Environment Agency) and, if necessary, seeking

consultations with those bodies.


7.3.1 The site is located off Wales Farm Road / Victoria Road on the existing Perfume Factory site

and contains a mixed-use building and car park.

7.3.2 The Paddington Arm of the Grand Union Canal is located approximately 1.1km north of the

development. The site is within Flood Zone 1, which means the site has a low probability of

flooding from river or sea. London’s Lost Rivers indicates the closest historical watercourse

could be located within Wormwood Scrubs east of the site and does not impact on the

development or surrounding area. Therefore there is a low risk of flooding from river

sources.

7.3.3 The main risk to the site is flooding from large storms with intense and long periods of

rainfall. The site has hard surfaces which allow rainwater to runoff into drainage systems at

high rates potentially creating flooding issues downstream of the site.

7.3.4 There are records of existing sewer flooding in the local area, to which surface water from

the site, discharges.


7.4.1 Due to the effects of climate change more intense and frequent rainfall is expected and this

could increase the risk of flooding from surface water. This would also impact the existing

infrastructure due to increased discharge rates leading to flooding downstream.

7.5 Mitigation

7.5.1 To manage surface water runoff during storms, the Proposed Development will reduce

surface water discharge off site by 50% of the current peak rates. This will assist in

mitigating capacity issues in existing sewer infrastructure and flood related risks.

7.5.2 To achieve the above discharge rate surface water will be temporarily stored on site in an

attenuation system which will delay the discharge of water, reducing the impact of a large

storm.

7-14

7.5.3 The Proposed Development will also incorporate Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems

(SUDS) to re-use, reduce and delay surface water runoff which further reduces the risk of

flooding from large storms.

7.5.4 The basement will require protection from groundwater ingress by using suitable

waterproofing methods and/or drainage systems.


7.6.1 The site is located in Flood Zone 1 and has a low probability of flooding from river or sea.

7.6.2 To mitigate the risk of flooding from large storms, surface water discharge off site will be

reduced to 50% of the current peak discharge and attenuated on site.

7.6.3 SUDS features will be used to re-use, reduce and delay surface water from large storms

which further mitigates the risk of flooding.

7.6.4 The proposed surface water measures will assist in reducing the risk of sewer flooding

downstream by restricting discharge off site during large storms.

7.6.5 The Proposed Development has a low risk of flooding from groundwater, however the

basement will require suitable protection from water ingress.

8-15

8 GROUND CONDITIONS AND CONTAMINATION

8.1 Introduction

8.1.1 This section provides a summary of the potential effects upon ground conditions and

contaminated land with a view to identifying whether the development will have any

residual effects.


8.2.1 Details on the ground conditions associated with the development area are provided in a

site investigation report prepared by RSK, which includes a full Phase 1 desk study. An

accompanying appraisal of the site investigation report has also been produced to update

the risk assessment and conclusions contained within the earlier site investigation report

with respect to the proposed residential end land use as the most sensitive use considered

under the contaminated land regime.


8.3.1 The site is underlain by a thick sequence of the London Clay Formation, extending to depths

in excess of 70.0mbg and overlain by variable depths of made ground attributable to

historical phases of development. The London Clay Formation is not classified as an

aquifer.

8.3.2 No surface watercourses or features have been identified within a 1.0km radius of the site.

8.3.3 Desk based investigation works have identified a number of potential sources of

contamination relating to former chemical storage and fuel tanks, the presence of made

ground deposits and a number of off-site sources relating to various industrial premises and

a nearby in-filled pond.

8.3.4 Site investigation works have identified the presence of elevated concentrations of Lead and

several PAH compounds (Benzo(a)pyrene and Dibenzo(ah)anthracene) within the shallow

made ground. In addition, two samples of the shallow Made Ground were also found to

contain asbestos containing materials. Investigation works also encountered negligible

concentrations of methane, together with marginally elevated concentrations of carbon

dioxide (maximum of 3.9%) and a detectable flow rate (0.3l/hr).


8.4.1 Potential adverse impacts were identified in relation to the demolition, construction and

operation of the site, primarily relating to human health effects with respect to future

occupants and nearby residents, but also relating to flora and fauna.

8.4.2 These impacts were generally associated with the creation of preferential pathways for

the remobilisation and/or migration of contaminants, introduction of contamination

sources during the importation of aggregates and the potential for fuel/oil/chemical spills

during the operation of plant and machinery. Operational phase impacts related to the

potential remobilisation of existing contaminants and exposure of residents to potential

contamination via a number of pathways.

8-16

8.5 Mitigation

8.5.1 To mitigate the predicted impacts, a number of measures have been proposed,

including the requirement for supplementary investigation works, primarily to refine the

baseline conditions around former tanks and where significant depths of made ground

have been encountered, and the subsequent preparation of an Options Appraisal and

detailed Remediation Method Statement.

8.5.2 These works would supplement the preparation of a Construction Environmental

Management Plan (CEMP) which would include quality control procedures to be employed

by contractors for the import and export of materials to and from site, methods for controlling

surface water run-off and dust and measures to remove contaminated materials off site to

licensed treatment or disposal sites.


8.6.1 With full implementation of the outlined mitigation measures, there will be no residual

adverse effects during the demolition, construction or operational phases of the

development.

9-17

9 NOISE

9.1 Introduction

9.1.1 The impacts of noise and vibration have been assessed relating to the proposed mixed use

development at the Perfume Factory, Acton, West London. The assessment follows

nationally and locally recognised policies, standards and guidelines, and includes data from

attended and unattended onsite noise measurements, existing and future predictions of

traffic levels and predictions from computer noise modelling software.


9.2.1 The sensitive receptors identified for assessment are categorised depending on the stage of

the development at which they may be affected, i.e. construction noise and vibration

receptors, operational traffic noise receptors and future residential receptors.

9.2.2 A monitoring survey was undertaken during the day and night of Wednesday 3rd December

and Thursday 4th December 2014. The survey comprised of a combination of attended and

unattended monitoring.


9.3.1 Assessment of the construction phase has been undertaken using a generic construction

methodology and plant list, as a confirmed plant list was unavailable at the time of writing.

Construction noise has been predicted at the facades of the receptors surrounding the site

using a computer noise model, using data from BS5228. At all receptor locations it is

predicted that the construction phase will result in daytime noise levels that exceed the

threshold criteria. It should be noted that the predicted levels are calculated with all

construction plant focused at the closest point on the boundary to the receptor. In reality

this is not likely to be the case and therefore the levels are considered to be very much a

worst case scenario. The predicted noise levels would most likely only happen for a matter

of days during the construction phase of the development.

9.3.2 The suitability of the site for residential development has been assessed with reference to

the indoor ambient living space criteria in BS8233: 2014 and Ealing Council SPG10

Guidance. Predictions generated using base year (2014) traffic flows and monitored noise

levels show that all facades on the edge of the proposed development area will require

façade attenuation over and above that provided by an open window, in order to meet

indoor noise criteria for living rooms during the day and bedrooms at night.

9.3.3 An assessment of outdoor living areas shows that areas potentially to be developed as

gardens or amenity outdoor space in the western area of the site, are predicted to be above

what is considered to be the upper limit for such areas. However, BS 8233 acknowledges

that the external guidelines are, “not achievable in all circumstances where development

might be desirable as such, a compromise between elevated noise levels and other factors,

such as the convenience of living in these locations or making efficient use of land

resources to ensure development needs can be met, might be warranted.

9.3.4 Operational traffic for the completed development has been assessed for the future years

2021 and 2036. A comparison between the “Do nothing” and “Do something” scenarios has

concluded that predicted noise impacts due to changes in traffic levels are of a magnitude

9-18

that are no greater than ±3dB, which would be considered a moderate impact in the short

term and minor impact in the long term. Traffic data has included the provision for future

developments and the operational effect of the proposed HS2 link.

9.3.5 An assessment of operational vibration, from existing train movements on the development

has also been undertaken. Vibration Dose Values (VDV) are significantly below the

threshold criteria contained within BS 6472: 2008.

9.4 Mitigation

9.4.1 No site-specific mitigation is proposed for the development. It is advised that construction

be done to Best Practicable Means and that fixed plant is located at largest separation

distance from all the existing receptors, preferably within the centre of the site. Facades of

dwellings should be appropriately designed to provide the necessary attenuation required to

meet the indoor ambient criteria for living spaces.

10-19

10 SOCIO-ECONOMICS

10.1 Introduction

10.1.1 The Perfume Factory site is identified by the GLA as being within a key regeneration

area and, as such, is covered by the emerging Old Oak and Park Royal Opportunity

Framework. The Framework sets out targets for circa 25,500 new homes and the

creation of 65,000 new jobs across the combined area.


10.2.1 The proposed redevelopment of the Perfume Factory will intensify the site to provide a

mix of residential and commercial space. The construction phase of the development is

estimated to be capable of supporting 58 jobs in the local economy. Once built and fully

occupied, the commercial space is estimated to be capable of supporting 531 gross

indirect and induced jobs. Of these it is estimated that 43 net jobs will be new to the

local economy.

10.2.2 The residential units could accommodate approximately 1,326 residents. It is estimated

that these residents could contribute an additional £11.1m of spending in current prices

to the local economy, which in turn could support an estimated 99 net jobs.

10.2.3 Overall therefore it is estimated that the development could support 522 gross and 101

net jobs. It should be noted that these figures do not include those net jobs supported

by new resident spend due to the potential for double counting. Taken on its own, it is

considered that existing and planned health services and education infrastructure is

capable of meeting the needs of new residents of the proposed development. The Old

Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation is working with local authorities and

service providers to ensure that new social infrastructure is delivered in line with the

phased development of the wider area to ensure that resident needs are met.

11-20

11 TOWNSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT

11.1 Introduction

11.1.1 The Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment considers the potential townscape and

visual effects of the Proposed Development on a selection of views, townscape character

areas and the townscape settings of built heritage assets. Consideration was given to

effects during construction and of the completed development.


11.2.1 For the purposes of the assessment, the surrounding townscape was divided into

townscape character areas, which have readily identifiable characteristics, such as

topography, natural characteristics, patterns of land use, urban grain and building form, in

common. The Site was identified as being located in townscape character area A, ‘North

Acton Station and surrounds’, the character of which is dominated by large scale and tall

recently constructed buildings.

11.2.2 Built heritage assets, including any Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, and Locally Listed

Buildings, were identified in the area around the Site. The potential for the townscape setting

of each asset to be affected to a significant extent in townscape and visual terms was

considered as part of the assessment.

11.2.3 A selection of 32 viewpoints was agreed with the London Borough of Ealing, including a

range of local, medium and long-range views, and representative townscape views.

11.2.4 For each of the identified views, the assessment contains images of the view as existing, the

view as proposed with the Proposed Development in place, and the view as proposed with

other consented (‘cumulative’) schemes also shown. Accurate Visual Representations

(AVRs) of the view as proposed and the view as proposed including cumulative schemes

were prepared for each view. AVRs are produced by accurately combining images of the

Proposed Development (typically created from a three-dimensional computer model) with a

photograph of its context as existing. As the planning application is for outline consent,

AVRs are provided as ‘wireline’ images, showing the form of the Proposed Development in

outline.


11.3.1 The Site is located in North Acton, close to the London Underground Station, and with its

principal frontage facing a significant north-south route within the local area (Wales Farm

Road/Victoria Road, part of the A4000). A grouping of large scale and tall buildings is

located west of the Site, to the south and west of North Acton Station.

11.3.2 The Site falls within the 'Southern Gateway' to the Park Royal Opportunity Area, as

identified by the Park Royal Opportunity Area Planning Framework (‘OAPF’). The Southern

Gateway also covers the existing grouping of tall buildings at North Acton. The Site is

located at an identifiable threshold point within the Southern Gateway - immediately south of

a bridge across the Central Line railway tracks, which forms a key entry point to the main

part of the Park Royal area - and it is the eastern-most of the sites identified as falling within

the Southern Gateway.

11-21

11.3.3 The Site is occupied by two buildings and open car park areas. The building on the northern

part of the Site is included on LBE’s Local Heritage List and is much altered from its original

condition. The existing buildings on the Site are not of a sufficient scale to mark the Site

within the wider townscape. The dominance of car parking areas, and in particular the

manner in which the four storey office building on the southern part of the Site is set back

from Wales Farm Road, is such that the Site presents a low quality face to the street and

fails to provide strong definition and animation to it.


11.4.1 The assessment concludes that there would be temporary effects as a result of construction

which would be no more than moderate in significance and adverse in effect for views; no

more than minor to moderate in significance and adverse in effect for townscape character

areas; and no more than minor in significance and adverse for heritage assets outside the

Site. With regard to the locally listed building on the Site, there would be a temporary

adverse effect of moderate significance as a result of partial demolition, although the

completed Proposed Development would directly improve the building and its townscape

setting.

11.4.2 The assessment concludes that the completed Proposed Development would redevelop the

Site with a series of new buildings, which would strengthen definition of Wales Farm Road

and help to animate it, and would introduce new areas of public realm. The greater visibility

of the Proposed Development compared to the existing buildings, given the Site's location

next to a major entry point to the Park Royal area, would aid legibility within the wider area.

The Proposed Development would incorporate the most characterful element of the present

buildings on Site - the facade of the two storey northern building - within buildings C2 and

C3.

11.4.3 The towers within the Proposed Development (R1 and R4) would appear as part of the

existing grouping of tall buildings at North Acton and would consolidate that grouping, albeit

they would be taller than the existing buildings and would have a different, more vertically

emphasised form compared to them. This would introduce welcome variety in terms of

height and form into what is currently a somewhat homogenous grouping in these regards;

the result is clearly preferable in visual terms to ‘more of the same’ when considering the

group of recent developments nearby. The R1 and R4 towers would be elegantly

proportioned.

11.4.4 The height of the R1 and R4 towers would be appropriate given the Site's location; it would

allow the Proposed Development to mark the Southern Gateway at an identifiable threshold

point and, as the eastern-most site within the Southern Gateway, it would enable the towers

to form a strong visual 'book-end' to that area of development. In views from the west along

Western Avenue, the towers would also act as a landmark on the route into central London.

11.4.5 The towers would have a clearly identifiable base, middle and top, such that they would

appear to have a logical and coherent order. The rounded corners of the middle part of

each tower, together with the projecting central 'bay' on all but one elevation and the

distinctive ‘bottle-stop’ form of the upper floors (as set out in the parameter plans and the

Design Guidelines) would provide the towers with a distinctive silhouette on the skyline.

11.4.6 The Proposed Development would reinforce the existing and emerging character of the

townscape character area in which it is located (a beneficial effect of moderate significance),

11-22

and would have a beneficial effect of minor to moderate significance with regard to other

townscape character areas.

11.4.7 The Proposed Development would appear in the background of some views from within

Conservation Areas in the wider area around the Site. It could clearly be understood as lying

in the distance and would generally appear together with the existing tall buildings at North

Acton. The effect would be no more than minor in significance overall and neutral in effect in

each case. There would be a beneficial effect of minor to moderate significance with regard

to the locally listed building on the Site.

11.4.8 The cumulative schemes at Holbrook House (shown indicatively in the views within this

document) and on the Carphone Warehouse site would form a coherent expanded tall

buildings grouping at North Acton, together with the Proposed Development. The height of

the towers within the Proposed Development is such that they would continue to act as a

strong visual ‘book-end’ for this expanded grouping. In some views, the cumulative schemes

would partially block sight of the Proposed Development, reducing its visual prominence and

the significance of its effect.


11.5.1 Overall, the Proposed Development would represent a significant improvement on the

existing situation on the Site. It would provide considerable urban design and public

realm benefits, including stronger definition and animation of Wales Farm Road/ Victoria

Road.

11.5.2 The towers within the Proposed Development would consolidate the existing tall

building grouping at North Acton while improving its overall composition through their

height and form. They would mark the Southern Gateway at a key entry point to the

main part of Park Royal; and, due to their location at the eastern edge of the Southern

Gateway area, they would form a strong visual 'book-end' to development within that

area. There would not be any significant effect in townscape and visual terms with

regard to heritage assets within the wider area around the Site.

12-23

12 TRANSPORT AND TRAVEL PLANNING

12.1 Introduction

12.1.1 The transport and travel planning chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES) assesses

the potential transport related environmental effects associated with the Proposed

Development.

12.1.2 This non-technical summary outlines the key findings of the ES transport and travel chapter.


12.2.1 Information presented in the ES transport and travel planning chapter is based on data and

analyses undertaken as part of the Transport Assessment (TA) prepared by Peter Brett

Associates (PBA) in support of the planning application for the Proposed Development.

12.2.2 The scope of the TA was agreed with LBE and TfL during the pre-application period.

Feedback from this consultation has informed the production of the TA.

12.2.3 The ES transport and travel planning chapter has been prepared in accordance with the

Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011; Institute

of Environmental Management and Assessment’s Guidelines for Environmental Impact

Assessment (2004); Department for Transport’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges,

Volume 11, Environmental Assessment (2008), and Department for Transport /

Communities and Local Government’s Guidance on Transport Assessment (2007).

12.2.4 In accordance with the above guidance, the assessment has considered the significance of

transport effects of the Proposed Development in relation to the following criteria: pedestrian

severance; driver delay; pedestrian and cycle environment; pedestrian fear and intimidation

and accident and safety. The significance of the effects on each criterion has been

determined based on the magnitude of the effect and the sensitivity of the receptor.

12.2.5 The assessment of effects has considered the following scenarios:

• 2014 baseline;

• 2019 (busiest year of construction) without and with the Proposed Development and

cumulative schemes;

• 2021 (opening year) without and with the Proposed Development and cumulative

schemes; and

• 2031/2036 (10/15 years after opening) without and with the Proposed Development

and cumulative schemes.

12.2.1 The cumulative schemes included in the assessment are as follows:

• Land at junction of Chase Road and Victoria Road, W36ADA (2011/4250);

• Nash House, Old Oak Lane, Park Royal, NW10 6DH (P/2010/2215);

• 1 Victoria Road, W3 6BL (2012/2339);

• One Portal Way, W3 6RS (P/2015/0095); and

• High Speed 2 (Old Oak Common station area).

12-24

12.2.2 The assessment is subject to the following assumptions and limitations:

• No assessment of hazardous loads has been included, as the transportation of

hazardous loads is deemed unlikely during the construction or operational stage of

the Proposed Development.

• The assessment of construction effects of the Proposed Development on links is

based on the assumed most likely construction route as identified within the

Construction and Logistics Plan (CLP) prepared by PBA for the Proposed

Development, since no designated construction routes have been determined at this

stage.

• During the pre-application consultation, it was agreed with TfL and LBE that due to

the reduction in traffic flows of the operational Proposed Development compared to

the existing development, no junction capacity assessment would be required. In

the lead up to the planning application, alterations were made to the Proposed

Development scheme in terms of the land use development quantum, that when re-

assessed, resulted in a ‘worst case’ net increase of approximately 64 two-way

vehicle trips spread over a day. This increase is not considered to be significant in

traffic impact terms and therefore no junction capacity assessment has been carried

out on the planning application scheme.


12.3.1 The development site currently consists of two commercial buildings, at-grade surface level

car parking and service areas. The site is bounded to the west by Wales Farm Road and

to the south and east by the Victoria Industrial Estate. North of the site is a gated private

access road leading to the Victoria Industrial Estate.

12.3.2 The site has three access points: the main vehicular access is located towards the

southern edge of the Wales Farm Road frontage and the secondary access is located

further north. The pedestrian access is located between the two vehicular accesses.

12.3.3 All roads in close proximity of the site have good quality footways and are lit. Signalised

pedestrian crossing facilities are provided at all junctions in the immediate area of the

site.

12.3.4 Cycle lanes are provided on both sides of Wales Farm Road adjacent to the

development site. These continue north on Victoria Road as well as around the Victoria

Road gyratory. To the south of the site, there are shared pedestrian/cycle paths on

Wales Farm Road before its junction with Conway Grove.

12.3.5 The site has an excellent level of public transport accessibility (Public Transport

Accessibility Level 6A). Five bus routes are accessible within a 600m walking distance

of the site. These bus routes provide up to 55 bus services per peak hour in both

directions on weekdays.

12.3.6 The closest London Underground station is North Acton, which lies approximately 200m

to the north-west. This station is served by Central Line services between Ruislip /

Ealing Broadway in the west and Epping / Hainault in the north-east.

12.3.7 The closest National Rail station is Acton Main Line, located approximately 800m to the

south-west. This station is served by First Great Western services operating between

12-25

London Paddington and Greenford. This route provides two weekday peak hour

services in each direction.

12.3.8 An accident analysis undertaken for the roads in the surrounding area has shown that

72 accidents occurred over a 36 month period up to July 2014. The majority of

accidents, 64, were of slight severity. Of the remaining, seven were recorded as serious

accidents and one was fatal. Three accident clusters, where more than 10 accidents

occurred over the considered 36 month period, have been identified. These are:

• A40 / Victoria Road / Horn Lane Junction;

• A40 / Wales Farm Road / Leamington Park Junction; and

• Horn Lane between Noel Road and Cecil Road.

12.3.9 The majority of accidents that occurred in the area can be attributed to driver error as a

result of failing to look properly, driving at speed and being distracted whilst driving;

rather than issues related to the highway network.


During Construction

12.4.1 The busiest construction period in terms of traffic generation will be from June 2019 to

February 2020. During this period, it has been assessed that a total of approximately

150 two-way vehicle movements will enter and exit the construction site per day. This

represents a net reduction of 279 two-way trips per day compared to the trip generation

of the existing development.

12.4.2 As a result of this reduction in vehicle trips, the construction of the Proposed

Development is deemed to result in no significant effect on severance, driver delay

pedestrian delay, fear and intimidation or accidents and road safety.

12.4.3 When considering the combined net traffic generation of the Proposed Development

and HS2, which is a cumulative scheme included in the construction effect assessment,

the following cumulative effects have been identified for 2019:

• Potential for significant adverse effects relating to driver delay at junctions in close

proximity of the Site.

12.4.4 This effect will be of temporary basis.

Once Operational

12.4.5 Once operational, the Proposed Development is forecasted to generate approximately

nine two-way trips in the morning, three two-way trips in the evening peak hour and 64

two-way trips on the local highway network per day compared to the existing

development.

12.4.6 As a result of this low increase in vehicle trips, the operation of the Proposed

Development is deemed to result in no significant effect on severance, driver delay

pedestrian delay, fear and intimidation or accidents and road safety in 2021, 2031 and

2036.

12.4.7 When considering the combined traffic generation of the Proposed and cumulative

developments as well as the construction of HS2, the following cumulative effects

relating to transport have been identified for 2021:

12-26

• Minor significant adverse effect relating to severance on Wales Farm Road and

Portal Way; and

• Potential for significant adverse effects relating to driver delay at junctions in close

proximity to the Site.

12.4.8 Since the proposed HS2 development is forecasted to be completed by 2026, the

above effects would only be of temporary nature.

12.4.9 The cumulative effects assessments for 2031 and 2036 have included traffic generated

by the Proposed Development, the four consented development schemes and the

operational trip generation of HS2. This assessment has identified the following

environmental effects for 2031 and 2036:

• Moderate significant adverse effect relating to severance on Wales Farm Road;

• Minor significant adverse effect relating to severance on Portal Way; and

• Potential for significant adverse effects relating to driver delay at junctions in

close proximity of the Site.

12.4.10 Mitigation measures proposed for the Proposed Development and by cumulative

developments will aim to overcome these adverse effects. In particular, mitigation

measures proposed by HS2, such as road widening along the Wales Farm Road

corridor will provide significant mitigation for the cumulative adverse effects identified.

Further infrastructure improvement works proposed by TfL and LBE in the area,

including cycle lanes and pedestrian environment improvements, will also reduce the

adverse effects.

12.5 Mitigation

During Construction

12.5.1 The following measures will be taken in order to mitigate any adverse environmental effects

resulting from construction vehicle movements of the Proposed Development:

• Application of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP);

• Implementation of the Construction and Logistics Plan (CLP);

• No parking provision for construction staff to encourage the use of sustainable

modes of transport for access to and from the site;

• Developer commitment to participate in any forums that will be established as part

of the wider area Construction Logistics Strategy (CLS) currently being developed

by TfL; and

• Co-ordination with other local development schemes, where possible, in terms of

the timing of construction activities and the construction supply / logistics chain.

Once Operational

12.5.2 The following mitigation measures will be implemented for the operational stage of the

Proposed Development:

• Implementation of the Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP);

• Application of Workplace and Residential Travel Plans;

12-27

• Provision of an enhanced pedestrian and cycle environment: including active

frontage to provide natural surveillance; good permeability across the site with high

quality pathways to ensure a minimal perception of severance; lighting on site to

create a safe environment and an attractive public realm;

• Installation of wayfinding signs to aid pedestrian movement to nearby amenities and

public transport facilities;

• Provision of high quality cycle parking facilities on site to for all users of and visitors

to the site to encourage cycling; and

• No car parking provision for residents (except for disabled users) and very limited

commercial car parking to minimise adverse effects on the local highway network.


12.6.1 During the construction stage, the Proposed Development is considered to cause no

significant effects. The construction of the Proposed Development in combination with the

construction of the HS2 scheme has the potential to cause significant adverse effects on

driver delay at junctions in close proximity to the Site. However, these effects would only be

temporary.

12.6.2 The operation of the Proposed Development will cause no significant environmental

effect. The implementation of the Proposed Development and the cumulative schemes

in combination with HS2 will result in significant adverse effects on severance and

potentially on driver delay.

13-28

13 WIND ASSESSMENT

13.1 Introduction

13.1.1 This chapter presents an assessment of the likely significant effects of the Proposed

Development on the local wind microclimate, both within the Site and in the immediate

vicinity. In particular, consideration is given to the potential effects of wind on pedestrian

comfort and safety. The chapter summarises the findings of a full wind tunnel testing

exercise undertaken by RWDI, a specialist wind consultancy.


13.2.1 Wind tunnel testing was conducted on a 1:300 scale model of the Proposed Development

and the nearby surrounding buildings within an approximately 360m radius of the Site. Wind

tunnel testing is the most well-established and robust means of assessing the pedestrian

wind microclimate with a Proposed Development in place. It enables the wind conditions at

a site to be quantified and classified in accordance with the widely accepted Lawson

Comfort Criteria.

13.2.2 The methodology for quantifying the pedestrian level wind environment of the existing Site

and Proposed Development configurations is outlined below:

Step 1: Measure the building-induced wind speeds at pedestrian level in the wind

tunnel;

Step 2: Adjust standard meteorological data to account for conditions at the site and

local surrounds;

Step 3: Combine the data from steps 1 and 2 to obtain the expected frequency and

magnitude of wind speeds at pedestrian level; and

Step 4: Compare the results with the Lawson Criteria to ‘grade’ conditions around the

site and local surrounds.

13.2.3 The Lawson Comfort Criteria define a scale for assessing the suitability of wind conditions in

the urban environment based upon threshold values of wind speed and frequency of

occurrence. The Criteria define a range of pedestrian activities including ‘sitting’, ‘standing’

(at bus-stops / taxi ranks / building entrances), ‘leisure walking’ (strolling), ‘business walking’

and more transient activity such as crossing the road. For each activity, a wind speed (and

the frequency of occurrence is defined. If the wind conditions exceed the threshold then they

are considered to be unacceptable for the stated activity to be undertaken comfortably.

13.2.4 For an urban development, the typical range of desirable wind conditions would include

sitting, standing / entrance use and leisure walking, covering the amenity spaces, building

entrances and pedestrian thoroughfares respectively. Business walking may be acceptable

on a route where there would be limited pedestrian traffic or where alternative routes are

available because this classification would be associated with occasional strong winds

during the windiest season. The desire for sitting conditions in amenity spaces, terraces and

balconies is weighted towards achieving this in the summertime when people are more likely

to frequently use such areas.

13-29

13.2.5 The wind microclimate assessment has been undertaken for the worst-case, windiest

season (typically December, January and February in the south of the UK), and summer

season (June, July and August) for the following initial test configurations:

• The existing Site with existing surrounding buildings (the ‘baseline’);

• The Development with existing surrounding buildings; and

• The Development with cumulative surrounding buildings.

13.2.6 In addition, a series of further tests have been conducted to develop and refine appropriate

mitigation strategies based on the outcome of the initial tests.


13.3.1 The existing conditions within and around the Site range from being suitable for sitting (in

the most sheltered areas), to being locally suitable for business walking and carpark

roadway use at the windiest locations around the existing Castle public house to the west of

the Site. The wind microclimate is predominantly suitable for standing/entrance use and

leisure walking, which is typical for sites in London. It can be noted that conditions tend

towards being windier along the west side of the site (Wales Farm Road frontage), which is

due to the alignment of this main road with the prevailing southwesterly wind, compounded

by the lack of shelter from other buildings in this direction.


13.4.1 In the absence of landscaping or mitigation, the wind microclimate within and around the

Proposed Development during the windiest season, is predominantly suitable for leisure

walking use or calmer, except within a few notable areas, namely: the ground level area on

the east side of the Site, the podium level space at the southeast corner of the Site and the

rooftop terrace areas, where conditions are suitable for business walking or

carpark/roadway use during the windiest times of the year. These conditions are up to three

categories windier than required in the worst case, and also experience strong winds in

excess of Beaufort Force 8.

13.5 Mitigation

13.5.1 On the basis of the assessment of likely effects described above, the following areas would

require mitigation in order to achieve conditions that are suitable for their intended use:

• The area to the east of tower R1 and north of R2, comprising thoroughfares, the

children’s play area and ground level entrance to R2;

• The area to the southeast of tower R2, comprising the crèche play area and

thoroughfares/entrances to access this area from R2;

• The ‘Sun Lounge’ area on the podium in the south part of the Site; and

• Rooftop terrace areas of blocks R1, R2, R3 and R4.

13.5.2 Mitigation measures have been developed through a series of additional wind tunnel tests.

These measures comprise:

• Soft landscaping throughout the Site, particular around the play areas, along the

thoroughfare between towers R1 and R2, and around the ‘Sun Lounge’.

13-30

Landscaping in these key areas is specified to be either evergreen or other varieties

with a dense branch structure to ensure adequate shelter during the winter months,

and should be implemented at a minimum height of 5m as assessed in the wind

tunnel study;

• An enclosed, one-storey winter garden projecting from the façade of R2 at ground

level towards the children’s play area (extending approximately 2.5m from the outer

limit of the tower);

• 2m high perimeter screening around the crèche play area, in addition to a solid

canopy around the south corner of tower R2, to provide shelter to the play area;

• 1.2m solid balustrades around the edge of the ‘Sun Lounge’ podium;

• Full height (approximately 3.5m) perimeter screening and porous pergola structures

on the rooftop terraces of towers R1, R2 and R4; and

• Porous 1.5m screening dividing the private roof-top terraces of block R3.


13.6.1 With mitigation measures in place, as described above (and assessed as part of the wind

tunnel studies), effects within and around the Site would be neutral at worst, with many

locations being calmer than required for their intended use (i.e. a beneficial effect).

14-31

14 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

14.1 Introduction

14.1.1 The cumulative effects chapter of the Environmental statement assesses the potential for

significant cumulative effects associated with the proposed scheme.

14.1.2 Cumulative effects can arise from the combined effect on a given receptor or resource of

other committed development projects when considered in combination with proposed

scheme. For example, a proposed industrial plant may be predicted to generate low levels

of emissions to air, but when such emissions are considered in combination with predicted

emissions from a nearby proposed bypass, these may result in air quality standards being

exceeded.

14.1.3 Cumulative effects can also arise from the interaction of two or more environmental effects

associated with the proposed scheme on a given receptor or resource. For example, a

residential receptor may be exposed to air quality degradation and increased noise levels

from a project that singly may be deemed acceptable, but in combination may result in an

unacceptable level of nuisance.

14.2 Committed developments

14.2.1 There are several significant developments within close vicinity to the proposed site;

14.2.2 The Carphone Warehouse development, on Portal Way, Ealing is a proposed

development, which will include the demolition of the existing buildings and the

construction of 8 blocks ranging in height from 6 to 32 storeys to incorporate up to 764

residential flats. Due to the close proximity of this development to the proposed site,

there may be potential cumulative effects that will need to be considered such as air

pollution, noise and traffic.

14.3 Mitigation

14.3.1 The declared residual effects for the proposed scheme in Sections 6 to 16 are those that are

predicted to remain after taking account of environmental mitigation measures.

14.3.2 The majority of significant cumulative effects are predicted only to occur should

implementation of the proposed scheme coincide with other committed developments (e.g.

construction phase overlap and consequential demands on the local labour supply).

14.3.3 Mitigation for other development effects falls outside the scope of this EIA. However, it is

recognised that local authorities responsible for such developments have the ability to

influence the timing of developments and secure measures to avoid adverse effects

occurring simultaneously.

14-32


Cumulative effects

Development Distance from

Perfume Factory (approx. metres)

EIA Topic

Air Q

ualit

y

Arc

haeo

logy &

C

ultura

l H

erita

ge

Daylig

ht

and

Sun

light

Ecolo

gy

Flo

od

Ris

k &

D

rain

age

Gro

und

Cond

itio

ns &

C

onta

min

ation

Nois

e

Socio

-E

cono

mic

s

Tow

nscape &

V

isua

l Im

pact

Tra

nsport

&

Tra

vel P

lannin

g

Win

d

Assessm

ent

Site A: Carphone

Warehouse 70 Y N N N Y N Y Y Y Y N

Site B: Holbrook House

40 Y N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y N

14-33

Interactive effects

Air Q

ualit

y

Arc

haeo

logy &

Cultura

l H

erita

ge

Daylig

ht

and

Sun

light

Ecolo

gy

Flo

od

Ris

k &

D

rain

age

Gro

und

Cond

itio

ns &

C

onta

min

ation

Nois

e

Socio

-E

cono

mic

s

Tow

nscape &

Vis

ua

l Im

pact

Tra

nsport

&

Tra

vel P

lannin

g

Win

d

Assessm

ent

Air Quality

X X X X X X X X � X

Archaeology & Cultural Heritage

X X X X X X X X X

Daylight & Sunlight

X X X X X X X X

Ecology

X X X X X X X

Flood Risk & Drainage

X X X X X X

Ground Conditions & Contamination

X X X X X

Noise

X X � X

Socio-Economics

X X X

Townscape & Visual Impact

X X

Transport & Travel Planning

X

Wind Assessment

15-34

15 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS

15.1 Introduction

15.1.1 The assessment of the proposed scheme has identified a number of impacts that would

arise as a result of progression of the proposed scheme. Mitigation measures have

accordingly been identified and developed to counter adverse impacts and reduce the

significance of residual effects on the receiving environment.

15.1.2 Environmental mitigation measures identified during the EIA process are reported in

Sections 6 to 13 of this Non-technical summary. Subject to the granting of planning consent,

these measures will form a mandatory schedule of commitments under the terms of any

contract(s) for the construction and future maintenance of the proposed scheme.

15.1.3 Environmental commitments are scheduled in Table 15.1 below.

15-35

Section of the ES Activity/Potential Impact Mitigation/Management/Monitoring Action

6. Air Quality

Dust Emitting Activities

Table 15.1 Environmental Commitments

15-36

8. Daylight and Sunlight

Impact on daylight and sunlight to surrounding existing buildings and proposed buildings

• For daylight and sunlight to the existing surrounding buildings:

o The design will continue to evolve and further mitigating factors will be considered and incorporated as necessary.

• For daylight and sunlight availability to the proposed buildings:

o Principal windows, i.e. those serving rooms which are not circulation space, should, where practicable, be sited away from locations where poor natural light availability is found;

o Balconies which are sited over principal windows should be avoided where possible;

o For daylight availability, where practicable, multiple windows should be utilised in principal rooms and glazed area, glass transmittance and internal reflectance factors should be optimised; and

o For sunlight availability, multiple windows should be adopted, particularly on multiple elevations, where possible. Narrow vertical windows should be avoided.

9. Ecology

Potential to cause the unintentional spread of non-native invasive species during the construction phase.

Removal of non-native invasive species through a spraying and monitoring regime over two years to ensure all non-native invasive species have been eradicated prior to works commencing.

Potential for direct impacts on breeding habitats associated with mature trees and shrubs

Removal of potential nesting habitat during construction will be carried out outside the bird breeding season where possible. If unavoidable an inspection of the affected area could be carried out by suitably qualified ecologist to reduce the scope for effects with legal implications

15-37

11. Ground conditions and contamination

Contamination: Direct contamination of the soil and potential groundwater contamination due to earthwork operations and potential spillage of fuel oils and site stored materials during construction activities.

Disturbance of the ground during construction operations has the potential to contaminate soil and both ground and surface waters due to discharge of solids into water or by the short term mobilisation of any background contaminants within the soil matrix.

The potential environmental effect of suspended solids discharges to watercourses and ground waters will be mitigated by adequate site controls developed by way of a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP. All contractors working on site will be required to adopt proposed means of mitigation outlined.

Specific matters covered in the CEMP will include:

• Prohibition of any temporary construction discharges without approval of the Environment Agency.

• Earthworks to be completed in a manner that protects the water quality environment and ecological interest of the area. The nature of the works and the proposed implementation methods will be agreed with the Environment Agency in advance and all works will accord with the recommendations of EA Pollution Prevention Guidance for Works in, Near or Liable to Affect Watercourses.

• Discharges of waters resulting from construction activities will generally be directed to foul sewers in the surrounding areas, subject to approval of the drainage authority.

• All fuels oils and potentially contaminating substances to be stored in bunded tanks or suitable hard paved and protected areas as are appropriate.

• All works will be completed in accordance with the Environment Agency documents, PPG 6 Working at Construction and Demolition Sites and PPG21 Pollution Incident Response Planning together with current best practice measures for the management of construction activities.

• All surplus construction and demolition materials to be removed from site and reused, recycled, or disposed, in respective order of preference.

It will be incumbent on the selected contractor to assess working practice related risks and impacts before implementation and control such by employing industry good practice techniques. Furthermore, the contractor will be required to develop emergency spillage, flood, fire and contamination control procedures such that any inadvertent incidents are immediately controlled to minimise the potential impact.

As a result of the development proposals and mitigating measures being implemented, no significant adverse environmental effect will result from the Project.

15-38

12. Noise

Construction/ Demolition Noise and Vibration

Application of the CEMP

13. Socio Economics

Demographic Changes Wherever possible, employees will be sourced locally from within Ealing.

Health

The necessary mitigation measures to protect the existing and future residents and users are detailed in Chapter 6, Air Quality. In summary, these involve a range of good practice onsite measures to be undertaken by site personnel, plus liaison with the Local Authority throughout the process, reporting of incidents which lead to excessive elevation of dust deposition and/or PM10 concentrations at neighbouring sensitive receptors, maintaining a complaint diary or log, and nominating a member of the construction team to act as a point of contact for the public.

Quality of Life

Dust mitigation measures are as above for health;

Good practice mitigation measures will be accommodated for noise impacts during construction. They are detailed in Chapter 12 of the ES. In summary, they include limiting work to certain hours, careful selection and location of plant/equipment, methods and programming, and appropriate training for onsite personnel. Such measures will be included in a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP)

14. Townscape and Visual Impact

Review Landscape and Visuals document.

Hoarding around Site.

15. Transport and Travel

Construction traffic

Mitigation measures for the construction stage are set out in detail in the CEMP and CLP and therefore the mitigation of construction impacts are the application of these plans. Specific measures covering construction impact mitigation include:

• No parking provision for construction staff to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport

• Commitment of participation in any forums that will be established as part of the Construction Logistics Strategy (CLS) currently developed by TfL for the local area

• Co-ordination of timescales with consented scheme developers, where possible, to share facilities and thus reduce vehicle mileage

15-39

Trip generation of operational site

Mitigation Measures for operational development include:

• Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP)

• Workplace and residential Travel Plans (TPs)

• Provision of enhanced pedestrian and cycle environment, including active frontage to provide natural surveillance, good permeability across the site with high quality pathways to ensure a minimal perception of severance, lighting on site to create safe environment, attractive public realm

• Installation of wayfinding signs to aid pedestrian movement

• Provision of sufficient cycle parking facilities on site

• Limited car parking provision

121155 perfume factory nts - 02 rvg › assets › nts › rsk › perfume factory mud nt… ·...

Documents