key to areas assessed key to colours shown on images 2011/2.01-2.03... · key to areas assessed key...

Appendix 9.4(A) – Overshadowing to Proposed Amenity Areas of 13

Appendix 9.4(A)

March 21st - Overshadowing Study to Proposed Amenity Areas

Key to Areas Assessed Key to Colours Shown on Images


North View - 21 March – 7am North View - 21 March – 8am

North View - 21 March – 9am North View - 21 March – 10am


North View - 21 March – 11am North View - 21 March – 12pm

North View - 21 March – 1pm North View - 21 March – 2pm


North View - 21 March – 3pm North View - 21 March – 4pm

North View - 21 March – 5pm


East View - 21 March – 7am East View - 21 March – 8am

East View - 21 March –9am East View - 21 March – 10am


East View - 21 March – 11am East View - 21 March – 12pm

East View - 21 March – 1pm East View - 21 March – 2pm


East View - 21 March – 3pm East View - 21 March – 4pm

East View - 21 March – 5pm


West View - 21 March – 7am West View - 21 March – 8am

West View - 21 March – 9am West View - 21 March – 10am


West View - 21 March – 11am West View - 21 March – 12pm

West View - 21 March – 1pm West View - 21 March – 2pm


West View - 21 March – 3pm West View - 21 March – 4pm

West View - 21 March – 5pm


South View - 21 March – 7am South View - 21 March – 8am

South View - 21 March – 9am South View - 21 March – 10am


South View - 21 March – 11am South View - 21 March – 12pm

South View - 21 March – 1pm South View - 21 March – 2pm


South View - 21 March –3pm South View - 21 March – 4pm

South View - 21 March – 5pm

Wind Microclimate addendum, July 2011

1

10. Wind Microclimate addendum, July 2011

10.1 Introduction

10.1.1 This ES Addendum follows the same EIA methodology and approach to the assessment

detailed within the January 2011 Environmental Statement. This is considered to be a robust

approach that does not need amending.

10.1.2 This chapter assesses the likely significant environmental effects of the Proposed Surrey

Canal Development, as amended, on the wind microclimate within and around the Application

Site.

10.1.3 Following a full wind microclimate assessment undertaken in preparation of the wind

microclimate chapter of the January 2011 Environmental Statement, and in light of the

revisions made to the Proposed Development following this assessment, a further boundary

layer wind tunnel test was undertaken to assess the likely significant environmental effects of

the Proposed Development, as amended, (incorporating soft landscaping proposals) in

relation to wind, and any mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce or offset any likely

significant environmental effects.

10.1.4 The boundary layer wind tunnel study has provided a detailed quantitative assessment of the

wind environment at key locations in and around the Proposed Development in terms of

accepted, UK industry standard, pedestrian comfort and safety criteria (Lawson Criteria). The

study considers the Proposed Development in the context of existing surroundings.

10.1.5 The revisions made to the Proposed Development following submission of the January 2011

Environmental Statement do not affect the interim construction scenario (an environmental

assessment ‘snapshot’), comprising Phase 1 of the Proposed Development. Correspondingly

the further assessment work has not additionally considered Phase 1 of the Proposed

Development within the context of Construction Effects.

10.1.6 The revisions made to the Proposed Development following submission of the January 2011

Environmental Statement do not affect the conditions at roof-top terrace level.

Correspondingly the further assessment work has not additionally considered wind conditions

at roof-top terrace level.


2

10.2 Policy Context

National and Regional Planning Policy

10.2.1 National and Regional and Planning Policies of relevance to wind microclimate remain as set

out in the January 2011 Environmental Statement.

Local Planning Policy

10.2.2 Policy URB5 of the Lewisham Unitary Development Plan (adopted in 2004) states:

“In those situations where the height of the proposed development may, in the Council’s view

generate potential developmental, overshadowing or micro-climatic problems at street level,

overshadowing of riverside pathways, channels and the foreshore with detrimental effect to

the river environment or in relation to adjoining buildings, the Council will require information

to be submitted that will demonstrate that such problems will not result from the proposed

high buildings. Applications for high buildings should therefore be accompanied by design

statements. An Environmental Impact Assessment may also be required.”

With reasoning as follows:

“Account will also be taken of the effects of wind turbulence and overshadowing in the siting

of any high building and applicants must demonstrate that every effort has been made to

contain or eliminate such factors.”

10.2.3 Following ratification by LBL in June 2011, the relevant policy within the adopted Lewisham

Borough Council Core Strategy states, in relation to the location and design of tall buildings:

“An assessment will be made on the potential developmental, overshadowing or micro-

climatic problems at street level.”

10.3 Methodology and Assessment Criteria

10.3.1 The methodology and assessment criteria for the further wind microclimate assessment of the

Proposed Development, as amended, within the context of existing surrounds remain as

detailed within the January 2011 Environmental Statement.

10.3.2 Correspondingly a wind tunnel test of the Proposed Development, as amended, was

undertaken within BMT’s Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel, which has a working section 4.8

metres wide, 2.4 metres high and 15 metres long with a 4.4 metre diameter multiple plate

turntable. BMT’s wind tunnel model was updated in accordance with the revisions to the

Proposed Development, and included a detailed modelling representation of the soft

landscaping proposals described within the Development Specification and as detailed within

the Parameter Plans that accompany the planning application. Relevant existing trees both


3

within the Application Site, and within the adjacent surrounding area were also modelled.

Trees were modelled in winter form, without foliage. It is however assumed that the trees are

of a species with substantial retained solidity in winter and therefore includes numerous small

branches and twigs.

10.3.3 All components of the wind tunnel model (including the measurement sensors) were reviewed

in advance of, and during the wind tunnel test to confirm the validity of measurements

acquired during the wind tunnel test, and correspondingly included within BMT’s assessment.

10.3.4 Wind tunnel testing represents industry-standard best practice, in contrast to other methods

which are less applicable to the assessment of wind effects and architectural aerodynamics

(including CFD assessment methods that do not apply to turbulent wind flows in the built

environment). Correspondingly the assessment technique is considered to be robust.

10.4 Aspects of the Proposed Development of Relevance to the Assessment

10.4.1 The Proposed Development, as amended, is largely similar to the scheme originally

considered within the January 2011 Environmental Statement, and wind effects are expected

to be correspondingly similar.

10.4.2 There are, however, differences to the Proposed Development that were expected to be of

some potential significance. With regard to prevailing westerly and south-westerly winds the

setting back of the Plot Stadium Avenue and the loss of plots Stadium 1 and Stadium 2 create

the potential for a reasonable change to the wind conditions within this and connected areas.

Additionally the removal of the lower two storeys of Senegal Way may give rise to

downdraughts being funnelled underneath the undercut from prevailing directions. The minor

increase in the maximum height parameters of Senegal Way 2 are not considered to be

material.

10.5 Baseline Situation

10.5.1 The baseline scenario remains unchanged from that detailed within Chapter 2 of the January

2011 Environmental Statement.

10.5.2 Correspondingly, baseline conditions are considered to be identical to those presented within

the January 2011 Environmental Statement.


4

10.6 Identification and Assessment of Effects

Construction Effects

10.6.1 Construction effects are not expected to differ from those detailed within the January 2011

Environmental Statement.

Operational Effects

10.6.2 Full details of the suitability assessment for the Proposed Development, as amended, with

proposed landscaping as set out in the Development Specification, are presented in graphical

format in Figure 10.3A. The trees considered comprised ~7-8m high deciduous trees of a

species with substantial retained solidity in winter. A fence / wall incorporated around the

Bolina West private open space was 2.1m high.

10.6.3 The general wind microclimate within the Application Site and surrounding area is largely

similar to that presented within the January 2011 Environmental Statement. Where minor

differences do exist, these are attributable to the scheme changes and to minor differences

between the current soft landscaping proposals and those developed during boundary layer

wind tunnel testing of the original scheme.

Thoroughfares and Entrances

10.6.4 Landscaping measures proposed within the Development Specification, would generally be

beneficial with respect to pedestrian level wind conditions. As a result, conditions across the

Site would rate as safe for all users and would be suitably comfortable for at least leisurely

strolling. Conditions would thus be suitable for pedestrian access to, and passage through,

the Site in relation to recreational activities, and the Proposed Development would have no

significant effect on wind conditions along the thoroughfares within the Site.

10.6.5 Building fronts currently envisaged as potential entrance locations would generally be suitable

for pedestrian ingress/egress, and the potential environmental effect of the Proposed

Development across much of the Site would thus not be significant. However, the potential

residential entrances at the curved Southeast corner of Stockholm 1, the curved northwest

corner of Stockholm 2, the western entrance to Senegal Way 2 and the southwest side of

Orion would be suitable, ideally, only for leisurely strolling during winter. Although marginally

windy for comfortable pedestrian ingress/egress during winter, conditions are expected to be

tolerable for an entrance, and these potential significant environmental effects would thus be

considered minor adverse.

Active Retail Fronts

10.6.6 Building fronts currently envisaged for active retail uses would generally be suitable for at

least short periods of standing and would thus be suitable for window-shopping as well as


5

pedestrian ingress/egress at entrances. Conditions would thus be suitable for active fronts,

and the potential environmental effect would not be significant.

Open Spaces

10.6.7 Within Bolina Gardens, conditions across the play area would be considered suitable for a

children’s play space. The remainder of the public space would be suitable for general

recreational activities, including short periods of standing or sitting, from spring through to

autumn, and would be suitable for a meeting point for example. The East side of the space

may benefit from evolution of the detailed landscaping scheme, pursuant to and consistent

with the landscaping referred to on the Parameter Plans and Development Specification, to

create more amenable conditions for outdoor seating. However this potential significant

environmental effect would be considered, at worst, minor adverse.

10.6.8 The private open space on the North West side of Bolina West would be suitable for a

children’s play space or crèche, being suitable for recreational activities including short

periods of standing or sitting from spring through to autumn. Much of the space would be also

be suitable during winter, with only the East side of the space, immediately adjacent to the

building corner, being slightly windy for such activities. Given the area and season affected,

the potential environmental effect would not be considered significant.

10.6.9 Along Stadium Avenue, between the Stadium Avenue plot and Millwall FC, wind conditions

would be suitable for at least short periods of standing / sitting, and within the south-eastern

half, would be suitable for prolonged periods of outdoor sitting during at least summer if

incidental seating were to be incorporated within the publicly accessible open space.

Evolution of the detailed landscaping scheme may be beneficial in ensuring similarly

amenable conditions within the north-western area of Stadium Avenue, but the potential

environmental effect would not be significant.

10.6.10 Away from building corners, wind conditions along the North East front of Stockholm 1 and

the South West front of Stockholm 2 would be suitable for long periods of outdoor sitting from

spring through to autumn and would thus be suitable for café outdoor seating. Evolution of

detailed landscaping may be beneficial in enhancing conditions within the more open space

between Stockholm 1 and Stockholm 2, but the potential environmental effect would not be

significant.

10.6.11 Station Square would be suitable for general recreational activities, including short periods of

standing or sitting, and would be suitable for a meeting point for example. This environmental

effect would not be significant.

10.6.12 The public space in front of Orion would be suitable for general recreational activities,

including short periods of standing or sitting, from spring through to autumn, but may benefit

from evolution of the detailed landscaping scheme to create similarly amenable conditions for


6

a meeting point during winter. This potential significant environmental effect would be

considered, at worst, minor adverse.

Surrounding Area

10.6.13 As for existing Site conditions, the Away Supporters Route around the North Eastern side of

the Site would enjoy suitable conditions for pedestrian thoroughfare. The South East corner of

the existing Silwood Estate, beyond the railway lines, would also remain suitable for

pedestrian passage and it is expected that the building entrances would remain suitable for

pedestrian ingress/egress. Adjacent developments to the South of the Site would similarly

remain suitable for pedestrian passage and for pedestrian ingress/egress at building

entrances.

10.6.14 Wind conditions at the location of the proposed Surrey Canal Road Station platforms, to the

South East of the Site, would remain suitable for at least short periods of sitting or standing

and would be suitable for awaiting a train.

10.6.15 The Proposed Development would therefore have no significant environmental effects on

wind conditions within the surrounding area.

10.7 Opportunities for Further Mitigation Measures

10.7.1 The pedestrian level wind environment has been assessed for the Proposed Development in

accordance with the Development Specification, and within the constraints of the Parameter

Plans. The assessment has highlighted opportunities for further development of the wind

mitigation measures at detailed design to further enhance wind conditions for proposed

pedestrian activities. The potential further measures are listed as follows (Note: opportunities

for further mitigation measures identified at rooftop terrace level are identified via the original

January 2011 Environmental Statement assessment):

Recessed or locally protected entrances at the curved Southeast corner of Stockholm

1, the curved northwest corner of Stockholm 2, the western side of Senegal Way 2 and

the southwest side of Orion;

Localised shelter, through introduction of screens, hedges or low-level shrubs, of any

seating benches in the public spaces in Bolina Gardens, in front of Orion along Stadium

Avenue, and between plots Stockholm 1 and 2;

Development of barrier schemes at the edges of occupied roof level open spaces,

potentially culminating in winter gardens on Bolina North 1 and Bolina North 2;

Introduction of soft landscaping and screens across the larger roof level open spaces,

potentially breaking larger spaces into smaller, more sheltered, pockets.


7

10.8 Summary of Residual Effects

10.8.1 With development and implementation of the further mitigation measures listed in Section

10.7, it is expected that suitable conditions would be created for planned recreational

activities and the likely residual effects of the Proposed Development would not be significant.

10.9 Assessment of Cumulative Effects

10.9.1 Cumulative effects are not expected to differ from those detailed within the January 2011

Environmental Statement. Correspondingly potential cumulative environmental effects would

not be considered significant as part of any baseline consideration or in conjunction with the

completion of the Proposed Development.

10.10 References

10.11 References for the current ES Addendum are as set out in the January 2011 Environmental

Statement.

Figure 10.3 A Proposed Development Wind Environment

Assessment

Socio Economics & Population addendum, July 2011

1

11. Socio Economics & Population addendum, July 2011

11.1 Introduction

11.1.1 This chapter addresses points of clarification and re-assessment with regard to socio-

economic effects. The revisions to the Proposed Development that potentially affect the

assessment of the significance of socio-economic environmental effects are:

– Fewer FTE construction jobs due to a reduction in the size of the Proposed

Development;

– Fewer residential units and changes to the tenure mix, leading to lower population and

child yield;

– Additional child playspace identified and commitment to replacement of indoor sports

pitch within the Millwall Community Scheme; and

– Less commercial floorspace, leading to fewer FTE jobs at the operational phase.

11.2 Policy Context

11.2.1 There have been no significant changes to policy which require re-assessment in relation to

socio-economics.

11.2.2 The previous assessment provided a detailed review of socio-economic regeneration policy at

national, regional and local scales. The chapter aims to give its own reference to national and

regional policy in terms of the development, and although it is recognised that local policy is

directed by national and regional policy, it is usually helpful to pull out the key aspects.


11.3.1 There are no significant changes to the approach to methodology or assessment criteria in

respect of defining the significance of the Proposed Development on socio-economic

receptors. However, the range of unit tenure and size scenarios referred to in Para 11.3.3 and

11.3.4 of the January 2011 ES are now no longer applicable, and have been replaced with

two defined unit scenarios based on a 0% affordable housing and 20% affordable housing the

minimum and maximum range stated in the revised Development Specification.

11.3.2 Para 11.3.5 of the January 2011 ES states that the operational development “will never

include the lowest parameters” in assessment of employment impacts. By way of clarification,

this refers to the approach in the Development Specification which highlights minimum and

maximum parameters by type of floorspace. The intention was to explain that the minimum of

all individual floorspace elements will not be assessed - the „lowest parameters‟ are actually


2

higher than the sum of individual minimum parameters by floorspace type due to the

requirement at 2.6 in the Development Specification which states that “the total quantum by

floor space of non-residential uses will always be no less than 37,000 sq m or 20% of the total

floor space provided, whichever is the lower, notwithstanding the minima quanta by land use

specified in paragraph 2.4”. Also, the minimum built extents shown on the Parameter Plans

would give rise to more quantum than the minimum floorspace quantum by land use.

11.3.3 In the January 2011 ES, Para 11.3.8 indicates that significance is to be judged solely by

reference to the magnitude of any likely change relative to normal variations in baseline

conditions, without reference to the actual levels of baseline conditions or to the sensitivity of

the receptor(s), or to any of the other considerations set out in Chapter 2. The text appears to

establish that where socio-economic effects are concerned, minor effects are to be treated as

significant”. To clarify this point, the „significance‟ of effects is related to the baseline and the

sensitivity of the receptor, and the definition given in chapter 2 stands. A „significant‟ effect is

any effect that has an above-negligible impact on the baseline and sensitive receptors, and

the significance is described as minor, moderate or major.

11.3.4 Para 11.3.9 of the socio-economic assessment in the January 2011 ES referred to the

significance of temporary and permanent effects, and may not have explicitly referenced

„occasional‟ effects such as events held at the MFC Stadium. To clarify this point, it is taken

that assessment includes a review of the effects related to the MFC Stadium, which is

considered a consistent element that will be subject to occasional events, and therefore this

element is encompassed in the assessment.


11.4.1 There are no changes to the socio-economic baseline required to update the assessment.

11.4.2 While it is recognized that the geographical units used to assess the socio-economic baseline

do not include the immediately adjacent parts of LB Southwark (e.g. Ilderton Road and Jarrow

Road), whose residents and industrial users can also expect to be affected by the Proposed

Development, by way of clarification it is noted that socio-economic baseline data is collected

on a ward-based level and aggregated across the ward rather than representing demographic

data on a street-level basis for data relating to housing, population, jobs and economic activity

etc. In addition, many of the baseline parameters including the assessment of deprivation and

all elements of the community facilities audit look at a geographical radius of the area and

therefore cover the surrounding streets and neighbourhoods.

11.4.3 Para 11.4.1 of the January 2011 ES describes the sports facilities component of the scheme

as “…a regionally significant provision of sports facilities”. To clarify this point, „regionally


3

significant‟ in this context is meant as a descriptive term to summarise the number, size and

type of facilities provided, rather than its impact on the receptors.

11.4.4 Para 11.4.4 of the January 2011 ES appears to cover ground that has already been dealt with

in Chapter 6, and some of the items included in the bulleted list are not necessarily control

measures. To clarify, this section tries to pull out references to the relevant environmental

management control measures that are relevant to socio-economics.

11.4.5 The socio-economic assessment baseline within the January 2011 ES does not include the

Grove Medical Centre, Windlass Place, which sits just outside the 1km contour centred on the

site. To clarify the approach taken, this facility hasn‟t been included in the assessment as it is

just outside 1km, the cut-off for assessment. However, the text following the diagram refers to

the Grove Medical Centre and recognises that it is just outside this distance.

11.4.6 Following a consultation on the provision of additional permanent places in primary schools in

LBL, a number of recommendations were made on taking forward a number of projects to

increase the supply of permanent primary places in Lewisham from 2012. The

recommendations pertinent to the Surrey Canal scheme include:

An intention to publish a Statutory Notice to expand Kender Primary School from 1 to 2 forms

of entry.

An intention to put on hold the proposed expansion of Deptford Park Primary School from 3 to

4 forms of entry.

11.4.7 Additionally, in PPPL5 (Deptford / New Cross), LBL is in discussion with John Ball Primary

School whose Governing Body is considering expanding the school on the Mornington Centre

Site, with the intention of increasing the number of permanent places available in the locality

more generally.

11.4.8 Latest projections suggest a shortfall in Reception places in Deptford / New Cross from 2010

onwards, and this is borne out by the current levels of late applications from the area. A high

proportion of late applicants for places in 2010 have come from this part of the borough The

LA will need to plan for approximately three additional forms of entry from 2011 - 15. Deptford

and New Cross are areas where major developments are planned, to be completed by the

end of the decade. Longer term projections anticipating the impact of major development

schemes indicate the need for up to 4.5 FE by 2014 and 7 FE by 2020.


4


11.5.1 The following section sets out a re-assessment of the likely significance of the socio-economic

environmental effects arising from the Proposed Development, as amended.

Construction Employment

11.5.2 The Proposed Development has reduced in size, and therefore will create a lower number of

FTE jobs during the construction phase. On this basis, the demolition and construction phase

of the Proposed Development will account for approximately 4,700 person-years of

employment, based on a 10-15 year build-out.

11.5.3 By convention, a permanent full-time equivalent (FTE) job equates to 10 person-years of

employment. Therefore, it can be estimated that approximately 470 FTE jobs could be

generated by the construction phase of the Proposed Development. However, peak

headcount on-site will be significantly higher.

11.5.4 The previous assessment concluded that the Proposed Development would have a minor

beneficial effect at the district level. The level of significance of the Proposed Development

as amended remains minor beneficial.

Population and Child Yield

11.5.5 Para 11.6.16 of the socio-economic assessment in the January 2011 ES presents the

estimated future population and “child yield” of the Proposed Development, without explaining

the tenure and unit size assumptions that underpin these estimates. The revised

Development Specification commits to a range of between 0% and 20% affordable housing

and a housing mix. The two scenarios outlined in the following tables represent the illustrative

scheme with 0 or 20% affordable housing. The illustrative scheme is only a few units short of

the maximum number of residential units specified in the Development Specification (2,400).

The illustrative scheme applies residential unit sizes and a mix consistent with the Parameters

and Principles in the Development Specification. Increased numbers could only be achieved

by improved efficiencies.

Scenario 1

1-bed 2-bed 3-bed 4-bed TOTAL

Private 757 1,027 178 21 1,983

Intermediate 27 64 36 30 157

Social Rented 40 94 34 63 231

TOTAL 824 1,185 248 114 2,371


5

Scenario 2

1-bed 2-bed 3-bed 4-bed TOTAL

Private 830 1,186 237 119 2,372

Intermediate 0 0 0 0 0

Social Rented 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 830 1,186 237 119 2,372

11.5.6 The Proposed Development, as amended, would bring forward a total of up to around 2,400

homes, split between a range of sizes and tenures. The proposed homes are expected to

accommodate around 3,849-4,205 people including around 212-532 children of between 0 to

15 years of age.

Households

11.5.7 The Proposed Development, as amended, will contribute up to 21% of the total housing target

for the Borough over the 10 year plan period.

11.5.8 Overall, the effect of the provision of up to 2,400 residential units and the hotel (up to 150

bedrooms) against policy targets for housing provision outlined in local and regional policy is

still assessed to be a major beneficial long-term effect at the local level, major beneficial

long-term effect at the district level, and minor beneficial at the regional scale.

Operational Employment

11.5.9 Based on the employment research detailed in the Methodology section, it is estimated that

the Proposed Development, as amended, would accommodate up to approximately 1,883

jobs (maximum) or 933 jobs (minimum), split between retail, hotel-based, service and office

jobs, (and including maintenance, street cleaning, security, concierge and cleaners) as

detailed in Table 11.4, based on the maximum floorspace parameters in the Development

Specification (50,000sqm employment floorspace). An estimate of the minimum scenario has

also been included based on the provision of 37,000sqm of employment floorspace, as

detailed in the Methodology section of the socio-economic assessment in the January 2011

ES (Para 11.3.3).

Table 11.4: Estimates of FTE Employment by Type in the Proposed Development

Use Floorspace (GEA) FTE Jobs (Min–Max)

A1/A2 – Retail Up to 3,000sqm 0 - 150


6

A3/A4 – Café/Restaurant/Drinking Up to 3,000sqm 0 - 231

A5 – Hot Food Takeaways Up to 300sqm 0 - 23

B1 – Office / Creative Industries 10,000-15,000sqm 526 - 789

D1 – Community 400-10,000sqm 11 - 278

D2 – Leisure and Assembly 4,260-15,800sqm 211 - 287

C1 – Hotel / Conferencing Up to 15,000sqm (150

room) 9 - 75

Maintenance, street cleaners, security, concierge and cleaners (domestic)

N/A 110

TOTAL 933 - 1,883

11.5.10 The Proposed Development, as amended, therefore represents an uplift of approximately

506-1,456 potential FTE workspaces across a range of floorspace uses, or a net uplift of 750-

1,700 FTE jobs based on current surveyed employment on-site. The January 2011

assessment estimated an uplift of approximately 506-1,519 potential FTE workspaces across

a range of floorspace uses, or a net uplift of 750-1,763 FTE jobs based on current surveyed

employment on-site. The overall effect of the Proposed Development, as amended, on

employment remains a major beneficial long-term effect at the local level and a moderate

effect at a regional scale.

Household, Tourist and Workforce Spending

11.5.11 The provision of up to 2,400 residential units will bring associated spending by new residents.

It is estimated that the households accommodated by the Proposed Development will

generate spending of approximately £38.2million per annum.

11.5.12 There are forecast to be around 506-1,456 net additional potential FTE workspaces on-site

based on minimum and maximum parameters, or 750-1,700 potential employees based on

minimum and maximum parameters. On the basis of the spending statistic above, that will

result in spending by employees of up to approximately £674,000-£1.9m per year based on

potential net additional FTE workspaces or £999,000-2.3m per year based on potential net

additional employees.

11.5.13 Overall, the spending calculated to be generated by the Proposed Development, once

operational, is in the region of up to around £45million per year based on maximum

parameters.

11.5.14 The assumptions for expenditure associated with visitors to the hotel remains consistent with

those detailed in para 11.6.31 of the January 2011 ES. Assessment of the proposed hotel is


7

based on average London figures for spend, occupancy etc (Paras 11.6.18 and 11.6.31 of the

January 2011) rather than for Lewisham. To clarify, this approach was taken as the London

average includes central as well as outer London hotels, giving a good overall estimate for

average spend. The proposals at Surrey Canal are at an early stage and it is not fixed what

kind of visitors the hotel would attract. At present it is considered the best and most robust

estimate to use.

11.5.16 The Proposed Development, as amended, would generate an estimated overall spend of up

to around £45million per year, compared with an estimate of up to £47million in the January

2011 ES (Para 11.6.34). As such, this is still assessed to be a major beneficial long-term

effect at the local level, moderate beneficial long-term effect at the district level and

negligible at all other levels.

Effect on Education Facilities

11.5.17 The Proposed Development, as amended, is expected to produce a slightly lower number of

children at both primary age (70-205 children) and secondary age (19-105 children). This is

reduced from the assessment in the January 2011 ES (Para 11.6.39 and 11.6.40) of 214-236

primary school children and 110-125 secondary school children. The significance of the effect

of the development on primary school capacity remains minor adverse at the local level and

the effect on secondary school capacity remains negligible at the district level.

11.5.18 Para 11.6.39 of the January 2011 ES identifies a need for significant new school capacity for

both primary and secondary pupils, although the conclusion (in Para 11.6.42) stated that an

additional need for 125 school places (now revised to 19-105) will represent a negligible

effect. To clarify the assessment of negligible significance outlined in Para 11.6.42 of the

January 2011 ES, increased secondary school capacity is needed at the borough-level and

this need is highlighted in published documents1 and through consultation with pupil place

1 LBL (2010) Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan as of August 2010; LBL (2008) Primary Strategy for

Change 2008-2017


8

managers. This shouldn‟t be confused with the assessment of local increase of secondary-

age children arising from the Proposed Development (125, now revised to 19-105) which will

be negligible in respect to the current existing capacity of schools in the borough. Secondary

school aged children are also expected to travel a far wider distance to school and the

dispersal of these children, assessed at a regional level, will be negligible. The cumulative

assessment section highlights that the combined effect of development in the area will indeed

have a minor adverse impact on secondary school place provision.

Effect on Primary Healthcare Facilities

11.5.19 The Proposed Development, as amended, is expected to produce a slightly lower population

(3,849-4,205 people) compared to the assessment at Para 11.6.16 in the January 2011 ES

(4,430-4,495 people). Health-related uses are included within the Proposed Development,

which potentially include GP surgeries, sports injury treatment and related activities, and

ancillary primary healthcare facilities. As such, the significance of the effect of the Proposed

Development, as amended, on primary healthcare capacity remains minor beneficial at the

local level.

Open Space and Children’s Playspace

11.5.20 The revised Development Specification commits to a total of at least 7,700 sqm and a

maximum of 9,100 sqm of publicly accessible open space in two locations, and between

9,645-13,695 sqm of private communal open space for residents. This is in comparison to a

total of between 5,600-6,600 sqm of publicly accessible open space and 13,000 sqm of

private communal open space in the January 2011 proposals. In addition, play provision for

children over the age of 12 is also to be provided on Site, specifically within the areas of the

publicly accessible open space that adjoin the Stadium. It is to be designed in such a way

that it does not interfere with crowd movement around the Stadium on a match day.

11.5.21 Based on modelling of the child yield based on research by Hunt Dobson Stringer into the

2001 Census data, and CORE lettings data from the National Housing Federation (2009),

around 2,220-5,740 sqm of playable space would need to be provided on-site to provide each

child (aged 0-17) with at least 10sqm. This compares with a requirement of 5,990-6,590 sqm

based on the January 2011 proposals.

11.5.22 The playspace calculations presented in Table 11.5 of the January 2011 ES are based on

the multipliers in the London Plan SPG on Providing for Children and Young People’s Play

and Recreation (2008) i.e. 10sqm per child, using population assessment outlined in the

methodology section of the January 2011 ES (Para 11.3.3). To clarify, the SPG does not

specify the child yield calculation methodology that should be used, although does include an

example methodology. The assessment of population and child yield in the January 2011 ES

has been based on a model that is more robust than the example presented, and therefore is


9

considered to be in-line with the requirements of the SPG. However, were the child yields

published in the SPG used in this assessment, there would be a requirement for 2,241-

6,280sqm of playspace (based on 224-628 children depending on the unit tenure scenario –

Appendix B, GLA SPG on Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Recreation

(2008) – extrapolated to ages 0-17). Given the provision of playable space in private

courtyard/roofs which Townshends estimated at 5,330sqm, plus provision for ages 12+ at

publicly accessible locations within the Site up to a maximum of 9,100 sqm and at Bridghouse

Meadow, the estimated child yield would still be adequately served by the proposed open

space and playspace within the Proposed Development.

11.5.23 The provision of new, well-designed and equipped, safe and accessible areas for play

remains a moderate beneficial effect at the local scale.

11.5.24 Paras 11.6.48 to 11.6.54 of the January 2011 ES describe the beneficial effects of the

proposed communal open space. To clarify, these paragraphs refer to “publicly accessible

open space” implying that open space is intended for the use of surrounding communities, as

well as occupiers of the proposed housing.

Sports Facilities

11.5.25 Para 11.6.55 of the January 2011 ES outlines the proposals for sports facilities at Surrey

Canal. We can confirm that the specific sports facilities that are definite commitments are

referred to in the Development Specification. The existing Millwall Community Scheme in Plot

Bolina East is to be accommodated in the future within the Proposed Development, within

either of Plots Stockholm 1 or 2. The existing indoor sports pitch within the Community

Scheme is to be re-provided as part of the D2 uses within the Proposed Development.

Waste Management

11.5.26 Section 11.5 of the socio-economic assessment of the January 2011 ES does not mention

the waste management sector, which features in the vicinity of the Site, and which could be

affected by the scheme. The following paragraphs provide an assessment of the potential

effects of the Proposed Development on the waste management sector.

11.5.27 There are a number of waste transfer sites currently situated amongst and beyond railway

embankments which run along the north eastern boundary of the Site (including Welcocks

and RTS waste management). Vehicular access from these waste transfer sites is currently

taken through the Site via Bolina Road. As part of the Thameslink 2000 works, vehicular

access to the Site from the north east is shortly to be extinguished, together with the future of

some of the waste transfer sites. The Welcocks site is currently accessed off of Bolina Road.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the Proposed Development does not aspire to encourage large

waste vehicles travelling along the roads within the development, the closure of part of Bolina

Road, as stated above, is brought about as a result of the consented Thameslink works. The


10

closure of Bolina Road (between the Proposed Bolina North 1 and Bolina North 2 Plots) would

ultimately prevent any vehicular traffic entering the application site at this point.

11.5.28 The details of the Thameslink works indicate that the ongoing function or operation of the

RTS Waste Site will be altered and that no adverse impact can be attributed to the proposed

Surrey Canal Development. It is assessed that the Proposed Development does not directly

affect any of the existing waste management facilities in the local area. However, some waste

management works adjacent to the site will be disrupted by other local developments.

11.5.29 The Air Quality assessment (Chapter 14 of the January 2011 ES) refers to the potential for

significant odour or fugitive dust effects to occur within the Proposed Development, based on

the history of complaints, the location of the processes giving rise to emissions. Complaints

are largely clustered around houses to the north east of the Deptford Recycling Centre,

between Trundley Road and Greenland Mews. These houses are about 100-150 metres from

the Recycling Centre. Chapter 14 of the January 2011 ES highlights that it is not possible to

confirm what mitigation measures might be implemented at the Recycling Centre as

operations are expanded. Given the location of the Proposed Development, the prevailing

wind direction, and the history of complaints, odour effects within the Proposed Development

should be infrequent, but cannot be discounted. This does not directly affect the operation of

the facility, but the need for the recycling centre to mitigate the effects of any future expansion

could potentially increase the cost of such expansion. This situation already exists, given the

complaints from existing residents, so is not a result of this development. The impact on the

operation of the waste sector is therefore considered negligible at the local scale.

Summary of Residual Effects

11.5.30 Table 11.6 in the January 2011 ES did not refer to the geographical level at which the

reported effects apply, and omitted reference to qualitative effects of the Proposed

Development on crime, retail, amenity, health and well-being and equalities. The following

table therefore updates and replaces Table 11.6 (Summary of Residual Impacts):

Table 11.6: Summary of Residual Effects

Effect Details Significance

Construction: Direct

Employment

470 FTE construction jobs, including local

training and jobs brokerage initiatives

Minor Beneficial (District level)

Construction: Amenity and

Disruption

Effects on amenity, disruption to access and

services, and environmental effects

Negligible, following mitigation

Housing and Population Provision of up to 2,371 units in a range of

sizes and tenures

Major Beneficial (Local and

District level); Minor Beneficial

(Regional level)


11

Child Yield / Education Up to 70-205 primary school aged children

and 19-105 secondary school aged children

Primary level – Minor Adverse

(req. Mitigation, potentially

through contributions) (Local

level)

Secondary level – Negligible

Healthcare Up to 3,849-4,205 residents expected to

occupy the new units would imply a need for

the equivalent of around 2-2.5 GPs to

maintain the current level of provision. New

Health Facility proposed.

Minor Beneficial (Local level)

Operational Employment Net increase of up to 1,456 FTE potential

workspaces in a range of positions, including

entry-level jobs

Major Beneficial (Local level);

Moderate Beneficial (Regional

level)

Additional Local Spending £38.2 million annually in additional

household spending and up to around £2.3m

annually in spending by additional workforce

based on maximum parameters.

Major Beneficial (Local level);

Moderate Beneficial (District

level)

Tourism and Hotel Tourist draw and expenditure of up to £4.1

million per year in local area based on

maximum parameters

Major Beneficial (Local level)

Sports, Recreation, Leisure and

Community

Provision of regionally-significant sporting

facilities and community facilities including

for assembly and health uses.

Major Beneficial (Local, District

and Regional level)

Public Open Space and Play

Space

At least 7,700sqm of publicly accessible

open space in two locations, and 9,645-

13,695 sqm of private communal open

space for residents

Moderate Beneficial (Local

level)

Waste Management Disruption of existing works to the north of

the Site;

Odour from Deptford Recycling Centre.

Negligible, as not resulting from

proposed development

Negligible

Crime – Design and Access Additional natural surveillance, active street

environment, Secured by Design elements


Crime – Millwall FC Improved public realm Minor Beneficial (Local level)

Health and Well-being Provision of new affordable homes, increase

in the stock of quality accommodation,

opportunities for employment, public open

space and child play space



12

Equalities Accessible homes, range of tenures; Range

of employment opportunities; Scheme

design does not promote social exclusion


11.6 Opportunities for Further Mitigation

11.6.1 The level of significance of socio-economic effects remains consistent with the January 2011

ES, therefore no additional mitigation measures are required.


11.7.1 The following paragraphs outline the quantifiable socio-economic effects of the Proposed

Development, as amended, against the estimated socio-economic effects of the identified

cumulative schemes listed in Chapter 2 of the January 2011 ES, in order to highlight a

„without scheme‟ scenario at 2026 baseline alongside a „with scheme‟ scenario. The section is

summarised with a table of the estimated effects.

11.7.2 The assessment of residential units in cumulative developments is based on a uniform tenure

split for each of the cumulative developments based on a similar average model to the sizes

and tenures of units at the Proposed Development (maximum development parameters). The

employment generation is based on the methodology outlined above, using ARUP/English

Partnerships Employment Densities: A Full Guide (2001).

Provision of New Homes and Household Expenditure

11.7.3 The residential element of the cumulative development, totals around 10,600 additional

homes in north Lewisham and Southwark. Applying an average estimated household spend

of £310 per week on goods and services, this would create an additional £171.7m per year in

local household expenditure. The Surrey Canal development, based on an assessment of up

to 2,400 homes, would provide an additional £38.7m annual household expenditure. The

cumulative developments, including the Proposed Development at Surrey Canal, would

therefore generate around £210m in annual household expenditure, and this is therefore

considered a major beneficial effect.

Employment and Employee Expenditure

11.7.4 The cumulative developments will also include an element of commercial floorspace, with

office, leisure, hotel and community floorspace, equating to up to an estimated 12,000 FTE

jobs, and therefore generating in the region of £16m in annual employee expenditure on food

and drink. The Proposed Development would add an additional 750-1,763 net additional jobs

based on minimum and maximum floorspace scenarios, generating around £1m-£2.3m in


13

annual employee expenditure on food and drink. In total, the cumulative developments and

Proposed Development at Surrey Canal could generate in the region of 12,700-13,700 jobs

and employee expenditure of £16.9m-£18.2m annually. This is therefore considered a major

beneficial effect.

Population and Child Yield

11.7.5 The cumulative developments would be expected to accommodate around 19,000 people, of

whom around 921 would be primary-school aged children and 474 are forecast to be

secondary-school aged children. In addition, the Proposed Development at Surrey Canal are

forecast to be expected to yield between 3,849-4,205 people, of whom 70-205 are forecast to

be primary school-aged children and 19-105 are forecast to be secondary school-aged

children. The cumulative developments and Proposed Development combined would

therefore be expected to accommodate a population of around 22,745-23,101 people,

including 991-1,126 primary school-aged children and 493-579 secondary school-aged

children.

Effects on Education and Primary Healthcare Provision

11.7.6 The new population in these cumulative developments will increase pressure on local facilities

such as primary healthcare and education. However, the developments will include some

element of education and community provision on-site through the re-developed Tidemill

Primary School and new library at Deptford Lounge and the Leisure Centre within the Giffin

Street Masterplan Area, and the Convoys Wharf development is due to provide an additional

new school.

Education

11.7.7 Based on an assessment of capacity at local education facilities, the increased population

would increase demand for primary and secondary school places in the local area. Given the

scale of cumulative development in the area, it is likely that there will be a need to mitigate the

effect of the Proposed Development as part of the broader investment in north Lewisham‟s

infrastructure.

11.7.8 The proposed cumulative developments would create demand for additional capacity in

primary schools in the local area by generating an estimated 921 primary school-aged

children and 474 secondary school-aged children. This demand has been accounted for in

LBLs forward planning of pupil place capacity and referenced in the Infrastructure Delivery

Plan and the effect is therefore considered to be mitigated. As referred to in the socio-

economic assessment of the Proposed Development, the Proposed Development will also

when built out create demand for school places (70-205 would be primary school-aged

children and 19-105 would be secondary school-aged children). LBL's assessment of

infrastructure delivery recognizes the level of development in the local area, including Surrey


14

Canal, and therefore provides mitigation of future baseline population in respect of primary

school capacity. In the context of an overall cumulative increase of up to 991-1,126 primary

school-aged children and 493-579 secondary school-aged children in nearby Developments,

the Proposed Development would therefore be expected to have a minor adverse effect on

existing education capacity before mitigation.

Healthcare

11.7.9 The cumulative increase in the local population of around 19,000 people estimated from the

cumulative developments would increase demand for local GP surgeries in north Lewisham

and Southwark. At present, the combined Local Authorities have an average list size of

around 1,200 patients per GP (NHS Business Services, 2010). Given that the most frequently

used planning assumptions take an average of 1,800 patients per GP as being considered

acceptable, it is likely that the additional population will create demand for around 10 new

GPs.

11.7.10 The cumulative developments include potential healthcare space at the Proposed

Development and Eileen House, and Convoys Wharf is due to provide a new 4-6 GP Surgery.

Consultation with LB Lewisham has identified that there is currently vacant floorspace with the

capacity to incorporate additional local healthcare services, potentially GPs, at the recently

opened Waldron Health Centre at Stanley Street, next to New Cross Rail Station. In addition,

the New Cross Gate NDC Neighbourhood Centre, including an integrated GP centre and

pharmacy, is a committed development.

11.7.11 In the context of the increased demand for GPs from the Proposed Development at Surrey

Canal (around 2-2.3 GPs) and the intended provision of healthcare facility on site, the effect of

increased population at the Proposed Development and cumulative developments (a

combined requirement for around 12 GPs) is therefore considered negligible due to the

proposed on site provision of health space.

Accessibility and Open Space

11.7.12 The cumulative developments have all been subject to standard planning criteria in terms of

design, accessibility and safety, and will all offer a significant physical improvement to

streetscene and public realm, with a variety of soft and hard landscaped public space suitable

for play and recreation.

Summary Table

Cumulative Developments

Surrey Canal (min)

Surrey Canal (max)

TOTAL (min) TOTAL (max)

Total Population 18,896 3,849 4,205 22,745 23,101

Primary Children 921 70 205 991 1,126

Secondary 474 19 105 493 579


15

Children

Total Homes 10,654 2,400 2,400 13,054 13,054

Total Household Spending

£171,742,480 £38,688,000 £38,688,000 £210,430,480 £210,430,480

Total Jobs 11,959 750 1,763 12,709 13,722

Total Jobs Spending

£15,928,941 £999,000 £2,348,316 £16,927,941 £18,277,257

GPs Demand 10 2 2 13 13

Surrey Canal Triangle Revised Jobs Analysis

June 2011

CONTENTS

1.0 Brief

2.0 Methodology 3.0 Existing Job Ratio Conclusions 4.0 Proposed Job Ratio Conclusions 5.0 Appendices:

I Site Plan II Table of Employment Densities

Arup/English Partnership Report July 2001 III Detailed Analysis of Existing SCT Jobs IV Detailed Analysis of Prospective SCT Jobs V Summary Existing/Proposed SCT Jobs

1.0 Brief The London Borough of Lewisham have requested a detailed report to demonstrate the current level of jobs provided by the existing built form within the Surrey Canal Triangle Site as identified on the plan at Appendix I. We are further requested to provide an estimate of the number of jobs that would be created following completion of construction of the proposed Master plan. The methodology, assumptions made, and the resultant comparisons are set out below.

2.0 Methodology – Existing Jobs The Existing job numbers shown in the attached tables have been calculated against approximate gross internal floor spaces of each building and shown in the 3 formats as set out below: 2.1 Format 1 – Column A in the Table at Appendix III – ARUP/EP Calculations These figures are calculated by reference to the Arup Economic and Planning Employment Densities Report commissioned by English Partnerships dated July 2001 that sets out employment ratios against the Gross Internal Floor space for each building based on their specific use class with region variance applied referenced in the full report against the SERPLAN/Roger Tym Research. See Extracted ‘Table of Employment Densities’ at Appendix I. Where the report does not specify a ratio for a specific use the number of jobs has been assessed based on our detailed knowledge of Surrey Canal Triangle which Renewal manages on behalf of Cragside Ltd. 2.2 Format 2 – Column B in the Table at Appendix III – Actual Job No.s These figures are based on Renewals detailed knowledge of their own estate that they directly manage, with jobs for property outside our ownership taken from the following sources: Millwall Football Club: Millwall Holdings Plc Report and Accounts for year

ended 30 June 2009 Millwall Community Scheme: Charity Commission Data Charity Registration No.1082274 based on the 31st January 2009 Accounts. Vacant properties have been shown at a 0 job level or 1 where security is present on site. All vacant property is currently on the market to let at open market rents and flexible lease terms but remains empty. As such this reflects the lack of demand in certain sectors and sizes of accommodation in the Surrey Canal Area.

2.3 Format 3 – Column C in the Table at Appendix III – Actual with ARUP/EP on vacant units. These figures are calculated as detailed in Format 2 with the exception that we have assumed that there is a market for these properties and if let would generate an estimated number of potential jobs that has been calculated by reference to the Arup Economic and Planning Employment Densities Report commissioned by English Partnerships dated July 2001 reference earlier in this report. See Extracted ‘Table of Employment Densities’ at Appendix III.

2.4 Methodology – Proposed Jobs The Proposed job numbers shown in the attached tables have been calculated against approximate gross internal floor spaces of each building and shown in the 2 formats as set out below: 2.5 Format 1 – Column A in the Table at Appendix IV – Renewal Job Estimations These figures are based on our original assumptions as to prospective job numbers based on the expected mix of occupiers.

2.6 Format 2 – Column B in the Table at Appendix IV – ARUP/EP Calculations These figures are calculated by reference to the Arup Economic and Planning Employment Densities Report commissioned by English Partnerships dated July 2001 that sets out employment ratios against the Gross Internal Floor space for each building based on their specific use class with region variance applied referenced in the full report against the SERPLAN/Roger Tym Research. See Extracted ‘Table of Employment Densities’ at Appendix I. Where the report does not specify a ratio for a specific use the number of jobs has been assessed based on our detailed knowledge of Surrey Canal Triangle which Renewal manages on behalf of Cragside Ltd.

2.7 Uses Where EP Data Does Not Define a Density

The Arup Economic and Planning Employment Densities Report commissioned by English Partnerships dated July 2001 does not include job density ratios for all the uses within the proposed scheme or the existing occupiers. For the purposes of this report we have derived densities for the following uses based on the following:

Crèche/Nursery: The guidance set out in the Early Years Foundation Stage Statutory Framework of May 2008 it sets out the registration space requirements based on childrens ages as follows:

Under two years: 3.5 m2 per child 30% 2-3 year olds: 2.5 m2 per child 40% 3-5 year olds: 2.3 m2 per child. 30%

From our enquiries of local facilities the mix of ages tends to be split in the percentages above which based on an area of 610 sqm (as per the proposed area shown in Appendix IV) equates to the staffing level set out in the table below:

Church: We have estimated the job ration at 1:100 based on the use being of a slightly lower density that would be needed for a Cinema or Sports Centre which are both stated as 1:90 in the EP data. We have also consulted with a number of large churches have advised us that expect staffing numbers for the size of facility proposed would be in the region of 100.

Medical Use: In arriving at a density for the D1 medical use within the scheme we based the density on a 7 GP surgery which would require staffing of 15 allowing for support nursing and practice management staff within a 1000 sqm facility. This equates to a ratio of 1:66 and we have applied this across the overall area. The exact use is still to be defined as consultation with the various NHS Trusts and PCTs progress.

Construction: Based on a £650m construction (240,000 sqm at £2700 per sqm average)cost for the entire scheme construction job ratios have been calculated based on 1 job per £92,500 of construction costs (Revision to GLA Economics – Laying Foundations February 2006). This equates to 7027 person years of employment and with and accepted industry standard, 10 years equates to 1 full time permanent job. This provides an estimated number of full time equivalent jobs of 702.7.

TOTAL NO

146 Sqm/Child No. Of

Children Sqm Staff per

child Staff

Needed

30% 3.5 43.8 153.3 0.3 13

40% 2.5 58.4 146 0.25 15

30% 2.3 43.8 100.74 0.08 3

400.04

31

2.8 Built Areas

For the purposes of this report the areas of existing building have been calculated using Gross Internal Areas (GIA) from the following sources:

o From our own measurements of our existing estate. o From the Valuation Office Agency’s Online 2010 Rating Valuation Data

3.0 Existing Use Job Ratio Conclusions. The three calculative formats derive the following ratios of job to gross internal area of the buildings currently on Surrey Canal Triangle:

EP NO.s 67 SQMS PER JOB

ACTUAL 110 SQMS PER JOB

ACTUAL WITH EP ON VACANT 82 SQMS PER JOB

A detailed breakdown of the data used is attached at Appendix III. 4.0 Proposed Use Job Ratio Conclusions. Based on the proposed development of Surrey Canal Triangle the non-residential areas derive the following job to gross internal area ratios.

EP NO.s 23.97 SQMS PER JOB

RENEWALS ESTIMATED NUMBERS 21.35 SQMS PER JOB

EP NO.s (EXCLUDING CONSTRUCTION FTE) 37.84 SQMS PER JOB

RENEWALS ESTIMATED NUMBERS (EXCLUDING CONSTRUCTION FTE) 31.70 SQMS PER JOB

A detailed breakdown of the data used is attached at Appendix IV.

APPENDIX I

Site Plan

APPENDIX II

Extracted Table of Employment Densities Arup/English Partnership Report July 2001

APPENDIX III

Detailed Analysis of Existing SCT Jobs

GIA GIA ACTUAL ACTUAL + EP EP EP EP RATIO APPLIEDUNIT ESTATE TENANT USE SQFT SQM JOBS VACANT JOBS JOBS/SQM JOBS/SQM JOBSUnit 1 Enterprise Alan Richardson Den Investments Ltd B1 1,240 10.764 115 2 2 58 34 3.4Unit 4 Enterprise Viet Minh Duong VD Motors B1 1,153 10.764 107 2 2 54 34 3.2Unit 4a Enterprise Joe Charlton Sherwood Services Ltd B1 1,075 10.764 100 1 1 100 34 2.9Unit 5 Enterprise Gary Anderson Kirk Mobile Autos B1 1,075 10.764 100 2 2 50 34 2.9Unit 6 Enterprise Anne Robinson GPS (Testing) Ltd B1 1,250 10.764 116 2 2 58 34 3.4Unit 7 Enterprise Oztok Oztok Motors B1 1,248 10.764 116 2 2 58 34 3.4Unit 8 Enterprise Tuan Huynh Lee Motors Ltd B1 1,250 10.764 116 3 3 39 34 3.4Unit 9 Enterprise Omotilewa Toyin Adediwura Quality Auto Services B1 1,059 10.764 98 2 2 49 34 2.9Unit 11 Enterprise Adam Lees Figaro Imports Ltd B2 1,059 10.764 98 1 1 98 34 2.9Unit 12 Enterprise Len GPS (Testing) Ltd B1 1,059 10.764 98 1 1 98 34 2.9Unit 13 Enterprise Vacant ‐ Fire Damaged Vacant B1 1,059 10.764 98 0 3 34 34 2.9Unit 14 Enterprise Vacant ‐ Fire Damaged Vacant B1 1,059 10.764 98 0 3 34 34 2.9Unit 15 Enterprise Kenneth Schreiber Kentray (London) Ltd B1 1,221 10.764 113 1 1 113 34 3.3Unit 16 Enterprise Kenneth Schreiber Kentray (London) Ltd B1 1,221 10.764 113 1 1 113 34 3.3Unit 17 Enterprise Anne Robinson GPS (Testing) Ltd B1 1,221 10.764 113 2 2 57 34 3.3Unit 18 Enterprise Anne Robinson GPS (Testing) Ltd B1 1,221 10.764 113 2 2 57 34 3.3Unit 19 Enterprise Anne Robinson GPS (Testing) Ltd B1 998 10.764 93 1 1 93 34 2.7Unit 20 Enterprise Anne Robinson GPS (Testing) Ltd B1 974 10.764 90 1 1 90 34 2.7Unit 21 Enterprise Abdelouahab Belal CP Autos B1 908 10.764 84 2 2 42 34 2.5Unit 22 Enterprise Abdelouahab Belal CP Autos B1 1,079 10.764 100 1 1 100 34 2.9Unit 23 Enterprise Anne Robinson GPS (Testing) Ltd B1 1,124 10.764 104 1 1 104 34 3.1Unit 24 Enterprise Anne Robinson GPS (Testing) Ltd B1 1,124 10.764 104 1 1 104 34 3.1Unit 25&26 Enterprise Michael Healy MH Coachworks B2 2,250 10.764 209 4 4 52 34 6.1Unit 31 Enterprise T Huynh Millwall Motors Ltd B1 832 10.764 77 2 2 39 34 2.3Unit 32 Enterprise T Huynh Millwall Motors Ltd B2 615 10.764 57 1 1 57 34 1.7Unit 35 Enterprise Sylvanas Sylvanas Wood Craft Ltd B1 1,250 10.764 116 2 2 58 34 3.4 ACTUAL JOBS EP JOBUnit 36 Enterprise Hong Wan B1 1,250 10.764 116 1 1 116 34 3.4 GIA SQM JOBS RATIO NO NOUnit 39 Enterprise Helen Chines Food Productions B1 1,153 10.764 107 4 4 27 34 3.2 2975 51 59 45 87.51Unit 10 Enterprise Alan Richardson Den Investments Ltd B8 1,059 10.764 98 0 0 0 50 2.0Unit 29 Enterprise Paper Paper Distributon B8 904 10.764 84 1 1 84 50 1.7Unit 30a Enterprise Paper Paper Distributon B8 904 10.764 84 1 1 84 50 1.7Unit 30a Enterprise Paper Paper Distributon B8 896 10.764 83 1 1 83 50 1.7Unit 33 Enterprise Tim Jones Overseas Courier Services Ltd B8 1,250 10.764 116 3 3 39 50 2.3Unit 34 Enterprise Tim Jones Overseas Courier Services Ltd B8 1,250 10.764 116 3 3 39 50 2.3Unit 37 Enterprise Michael Corby CPR Parts B8 1,250 10.764 116 3 3 39 50 2.3Unit 38 Enterprise Hong Wan B8 1,250 10.764 116 0 0 0 50 2.3 EP JOBUnit 40 Enterprise Michael Corby CPR Parts B8 1,153 10.764 107 1 1 107 50 2.1 GIA SQM JOBS RATIO NOUnit 41 Enterprise Abdula Hassan My Butchers Ltd B8 904 10.764 84 0 0 0 50 1.7 1005 13 77 20.10Unit 2 Enterprise Alan Richardson Den Investments Ltd Cafe 830 10.764 77 3 3 26 13 5.9 EP JOBUnit 3 Enterprise Alan Richardson Den Investments Ltd Cafe 772 10.764 72 4 4 18 13 5.5 GIA SQM JOBS RATIO NOUnit 27 Enterprise Abraham Osibana Celestial God's Glory Church Community 1,124 10.764 104 2 2 52 100 1.0 149 7 21 11.45Unit 42 Enterprise Church Church Community 904 10.764 84 2 2 42 100 0.8 EP JOB

69 75 121 GIA SQM JOBS RATIO NO188 4 47 1.88

B1 TOTALS

B8 TOTALS

FOOD RETAIL TOTALS

EXISTING JOBS ON SURREY CANAL TRIANGLE ‐ SOURCE ONSITE POLE AND EP EQUIVALENT ON VACANT

COMMUNITY TOTALS

NUMBERS TRANSFERRED TO SUMMARY APPENDIX V

GIA GIA ACTUAL ACTUAL + EP EP EP EP RATIO APPLIEDUNIT ESTATE TENANT USE SQFT SQM JOBS VACANT JOBS JOBS/SQM JOBS/SQM JOBSUnit 11 Orion A Rocco Esq B1 2,081 10.764 193 3 3 64 34 5.7Unit 13 Orion Benny Benny Foods B1 1,255 10.764 117 3 3 39 34 3.4Unit 17 Orion Clare Brazil Pirtek B1 1,255 10.764 117 4 4 29 34 3.4Unit 18 Orion Wesley Ferguson Wesmon Press B1 1,255 10.764 117 1 1 117 34 3.4Unit 20 Orion Mehmet Taxi Repairs B1 1,255 10.764 117 1 1 117 34 3.4Unit 21 Orion Vacant Vacant B1 1,255 10.764 117 0 3 34 34 3.4Unit 22 Orion Global Mail Serices B1 1,255 10.764 117 0 3 34 34 3.4 ACTUAL JOBS EP JOBUnit 23 Orion Isam White Villa Limted B1 1,255 10.764 117 2 2 58 34 3.4 GIA SQM JOBS RATIO NO NOUnit 24 Orion Isam White Villa Limted B1 1,899 10.764 176 3 3 59 34 5.2 1186 24 50 17 34.87Unit 1 Orion Terry Short Ravensbourne Wine Co B8 1,272 10.764 118 2 2 59 50 2.4Unit 2 Orion Vacant Vacant B8 1,272 10.764 118 0 2 50 50 2.4Unit 3 Orion Crispin Location One B8 2,483 10.764 231 1 1 231 50 4.6Unit 4 Orion City & West End Solutions Ltd B8 1,259 10.764 117 2 2 59 50 2.3Unit 12 Orion Fredy Vasilev Unique Automation B8 1,255 10.764 117 1 2 58 50 2.3Unit 14 Orion Fredy Vasilev Unique Automation B8 1,232 10.764 114 2 2 57 50 2.3Unit 15 Orion City & West End Solutions Ltd B8 1,255 10.764 117 1 1 117 50 2.3Unit 16 Orion Vacant Vacant B8 1,255 10.764 117 0 2 50 50 2.3 ACTUAL JOBS EP JOBUnit 19 Orion Vacant Vacant B8 1,230 10.764 114 0 2 50 50 2.3 GIA SQM JOBS RATIO NO NOUnit 25 Orion Vacant Vacant B8 1,255 10.764 117 0 2 50 50 2.3 1279 19 66 10 25.58

60.5

Unit 5 Orion Being Demolished ‐ TfL Works Vacant 1,259 10.764 117 0 0 0.0Unit 6 Orion Being Demolished ‐ TfL Works Vacant 1,259 10.764 117 0 0 0.0Unit 7 Orion Being Demolished ‐ TfL Works Vacant 1,259 10.764 117 0 0 0.0Unit 8 Orion Being Demolished ‐ TfL Works Vacant 1,238 10.764 115 0 0 0.0Unit 9 Orion Being Demolished ‐ TfL Works Vacant 807 10.764 75 0 0 0.0Unit 10 Orion Being Demolished ‐ TfL Works Vacant 2,490 10.764 231 0 0 0.0

Unit 1 Rollins St Jewsons B8 22,820 10.764 2,120 15 15 141 80 26.5 EP JOBUnit 2 Rollins St Scaffolders B8 7,858 10.764 730 10 10 73 80 9.1 GIA SQM JOBS RATIO NO

2850 25 114 35.63

Unit 1 Stockholm DHL B8 32,200 10.764 2,991 1 37 80 80 37.4 ACTUAL JOBS EP JOBUnit 2 Stockholm Michael Gayle Lewisham College B8 55,960 10.764 5,199 1 65 80 80 65.0 GIA SQM JOBS RATIO NO NO

8190 102 80 2 102.38NOT OWNED BY RENEWALUnits 5‐7 Excelsior Mimi Buckingham B1 2,097 10.764 195 2 2 97 34 5.7Unit 13 Excelsior Richard Moody RM Motors B2 3,283 10.764 305 4 4 76 34 9.0Units8‐9 Excelsior B2 4,943 10.764 459 1 14 34 34 13.5 EP JOBUnits 10‐11 Excelsior B1 2,432 10.764 226 2 7 34 34 6.6 GIA SQM JOBS RATIO NOUnits 12 Excelsior B1 1,273 10.764 118 3 3 34 34 3.5 1303 30 44 38.33Units1‐4 Excelsior B8 2,454 10.764 228 2 5 50 50 4.6Unit 14‐15 Excelsior B8 1,270 10.764 118 5 2 50 50 2.4Unit 16 Excelsior B8 1,550 10.764 144 4 3 50 50 2.9Unit 17 Excelsior B8 464 10.764 43 12 1 50 50 0.9Unit 18 Excelsior B8 1,492 10.764 139 4 3 50 50 2.8 EP JOBUnit 19 Excelsior B8 429 10.764 40 13 1 50 50 0.8 GIA SQM JOBS RATIO NOGuild House Excelsior B8 28,578 10.764 2655 0 53 50 50 53.1 3367 67 50 67.33Rollins House Excelsior Live work 6,114 10.764 568 3 n/a n/a n/a n/a LIVE WORK TOTALS EP JOBLive Work NewBuild Excelsior Live work 12,271 10.764 1140 6 n/a n/a n/a n/a GIA SQM JOBS RATIO NO

6378 1708 9 n/a 0.00

Millwall FC Millwall Millwall FC Sports 128,092 10.764 11900 112 112 106 90 132.2 EP JOBCommunity Scheme Millwall Millwall Community Scheme Sports 44,348 10.764 4120 25 25 165 90 45.8 GIA SQM JOBS RATIO NO

16020 137 117 178.00

B8 TOTALS

SPORTS TOTALS

B8 TOTALS

B8 TOTALS

B8 TOTALS

NUMBERS TRANSFERRED TO SUMMARY APPENDIX V

B1 TOTALS

B1 TOTALS

EXISTING JOBS ON SURREY CANAL TRIANGLE ‐ SOURCE ONSITE POLE AND EP EQUIVALENT ON VACANT

APPENDIX IV

Detailed Analysis of Prospective SCT Jobs

B A

GIA GIAClass Use m2 Jobs Opening hours m2 EP Ratio Jobs

A1 SHOPS Mid ‐ Size Supermarket 800 20 8 am ‐ 10 pm Mid ‐ Size Supermarket 800 19 42Chemist 100 5 9 am ‐ 6 pm Chemist 100 20 5

Newsagents 100 8 6 am ‐ 7 pm Newsagents 100 20 5Off Licence 100 5 11 am ‐ 10.30 pm Off Licence 100 20 5Dry Cleaners 63 4 8 am ‐ 6 pm Dry Cleaners 63 20 3

Shoe repair/key cutting 50 2 8 am ‐ 6 pm Shoe repair/key cutting 50 20 3Hair Salon 100 12 9.30 am ‐ 10 pm Hair Salon 100 20 5Florist 100 4 8am ‐ 5 pm Florist 100 20 5

Sports Shop 200 10 9 am ‐ 6 pm Sports Shop 200 20 10Delicatessen 100 5 8 am ‐ 6 pm Delicatessen 100 20 5

Specialist Retail 400 20 9 am ‐ 6 pm Specialist Retail 400 20 20total 2113 95 total 2113 108

0A2 FINANCIAL Estate Management Company 318 10 8 AM ‐ 8 PM Estate Management Company 318 19 17

& PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Maintenance ‐ Landscaping 25 Maintenance ‐ Landscaping 25Street Cleaning 5 Street Cleaning 5

Security 30 Security 30Concierge 20 Concierge 20

Cleaners ‐ Domestic 30 Cleaners ‐ Domestic 30Estate Agent 150 8 9AM ‐ 6.30PM Estate Agent 150 19 8

0total 468 128 total 468 135

0A3/A4/A5 FOOD AND DRINK Sports Cafe 400 25 10 AM ‐ 11 PM Sports Cafe 400 13 31

Wine Bar/Pub x2 450 30 11 AM ‐ 11 PM Wine Bar/Pub x2 450 13 35Coffee Shop x 2 200 10 7 AM ‐ 7 PM Coffee Shop x 2 200 13 15

Brasserie 300 20 8 AM ‐ 12 PM Brasserie 300 13 23Restaurants x2 800 30 11 AM ‐ 12 PM Restaurants x2 800 13 62

Take‐away hot food x2 300 20 5 PM ‐ 11 PM Take‐away hot food x2 300 13 23Sandwich Bar 90 6 7 AM ‐ 3 PM Sandwich Bar 90 13 7Millwall Café 200 10 Millwall Café 200 13 15

total 2740 151 total 2740 211

SURREY CANAL TRIANGLE ‐ NEW JOB ANALYSIS ‐ SOURCE EP DENSITIES TABLERENEWAL GROUP JOB ESTIMATES ENGLISH PARTNERSHIP/ ARUP RATIO COMPARISON

B1 BUSINESS Creative Business Incubation Units 5,664 280 7 AM ‐ 7 PM Creative Business Incubation Units 5664 32 177Managed/Serviced Office Space 2,311 155 8 AM ‐ 6.30 PM Managed/Serviced Office Space 2311 20 116

Small Office Units 1,732 100 Small Office Units 1732 19 91

Total 9,707 535 Total 9707 384

C1 HOTELS & CONFERENCING Hotel 7633 100 8 AM ‐ 10 PM Hotel 7633 90 8524HRS

Total 7,633 100 Total 7633 85

D1 NON RESIDENTIAL Medical 3,663 50 Medical 3663 66 56INSTITUTIONS Nursery/Crèche 400 31 Nursery/Crèche 400 30 13

Church 5,027 100 Church 5027 100 50

Total 9,090 181 Total 9090 196 119

D2 ASSEMBLY AND LEISURE Millwall FC 112 9 AM ‐ 5 PM Millwall FC 112Lions Community Centre 20 7 AM ‐ 11 PM Lions Community Centre 20Indoor Cricket School 15 7 AM ‐ 11 PM Indoor Cricket School 15Basketball/Netball 15 7 AM ‐ 11 PM Basketball/Netball 15Leisure Club & Spa 30 7 AM ‐ 11 PM Leisure Club & Spa 30

Table Tennis/Gymnastics 10 7 AM ‐ 11 PM Table Tennis/Gymnastics 10Boxing & Weightlifting 10 9 AM ‐ 11 PM Boxing & Weightlifting 10

Climbing Wall 3 9 AM ‐ 11 PM Climbing Wall 3*these job's include coaching *these job's include coaching

& administrative staff & administrative staff

Total 13,700 215 Total 13,700 90 152

SUI GENERIS Laundrette 100 4 8 AM ‐ 10 PM Laundrette 100 20 5Minicab Office 50 30 24HRS Minicab Office 50 20 3

Urban Garden Centre 200 6 9.30 ‐ 8 PM Urban Garden Centre 200 20 10

Total 350 40 Total 350 18

RENEWAL TOTALS ‐ PERMENANT JOBS 1,445 EP TOTALS ‐ PERMENANT JOBS 1,211

5‐10 Year Construction jobs 700 5‐10 Year Construction jobs 700

FULL TIME EQUIVALENT JOBS 700 FULL TIME EQUIVALENT JOBS 700

RENEWAL TOTALS ‐ PERMENANT & F/T EQUIVALENT 45,801 2,145 EP TOTALS ‐ PERMENANT & F/T EQUIVALENT 45,801 1,911

13700 13700

APPENDIX IV

Summary Existing/Proposed SCT Jobs

A B C

PLOT REFERENCE GIA SQM USESENGLISH PARTNERSHIP JOB

RATIO PER SQM *ENGLISH PARTNERSHIP JOB NO.s ACTUAL JOB NO.S **

ACTUAL JOB NO.S WITH EP RATES APPLIED TO VACANT BUIDLINGS **

Bolina Road 2975 B1/B2 34 88 45 51

Bolina Road 188 Community Use 100 2 4 4

Bolina Road 1005 B8 50 20 13 13

Bolina Road 149 A3 13 11 7 7

Millwall FC 11900 Sport 90 132 112 112

Community Scheme 4120 Sport 90 46 25 25

Stockholm Road (Unoccupied) 8190 B8 80 102 2 102

Orion 1186 B1/B2 34 35 17 24

Orion 1279 B8 50 26 10 19

Rollins Street 2850 B8 80 36 25 25

Excelsior Works 1303 B1/B2 34 38 30 30

Excelsior Works 3367 B8 50 67 67 67

Excelsior Works 1708 Live Work 0 0 9 9

PLOT REFERENCE GIA SQM ENGLISH PARTNERSHIP JOB NO.s ACTUAL JOB NO.SACTUAL JOB NO.S WITH EP RATES APPLIED TO

VACANT BUIDLINGS **

OVERALL 40221 603 366 488

67 SQMS PER JOB

110 SQMS PER JOB

82 SQMS PER JOB

EXISTING JOBS ANALYSIS ‐ SURREY CANAL TRIANGLE ‐ SUMMARY ANALYSIS

EP NO.s

ACTUAL

ACTUAL WITH EP ON VACANT

PLOT REFERENCE GIA SQM USESENGLISH PARTNERSHIP JOB

NO.sRENEWAL ESTIMATED JOB NO.S

SCT 10,025 B1/Business Incubation 400 545

13,700 Sports/Leisure 152 215

4,063 Medical/Creche 69 81

2613 Retail A1/A2 133 143

2740 Retail A3/A4/A5 211 151

7,633 Hotel/Conference 85 100

5,027 Church/Auditorium 50 100

Site Mangement 110 110

5‐7 Yr Construction 700 700

PLOT REFERENCE AREA SQM JOB NO.S JOB NO.S

OVERALL 45801 1911 2145

23.97 SQMS PER JOB

21.35 SQMS PER JOB

37.84 SQMS PER JOB

31.70 SQMS PER JOB

EP NO.s (EXCLUDING CONSTRUCTION FTE)

RENEWALS ESTIMATED NUMBERS (EXCLUDING CONSTRUCTION FTE)

EP NO.s

RENEWALS ESTIMATED NUMBERS

PROPOSED JOBS ANALYSIS ‐ SURREY CANAL TRIANGLE ‐ SUMMARY ANALYSIS

Transport & Movement addendum, July 2011

1

12. Transport & Movement addendum, July 2011

12.1 Introduction

12.1.1. Chapter 12 of the Environmental Statement (January 2011) describes the likely

significant effects of the Proposed Development with respect to Transport and

Movement during both the construction and operational phases. The Chapter is

supported by the Transport Assessment in Technical Appendix 12.1.

12.1.2. There have been a series of post application discussions from February to June 2011

with the London Borough of Lewisham (LBL), Transport for London (TfL) and the

London Borough of Southwark (LBS) relating to the Transport Assessment. This

Chapter should be read in conjunction with the Transport Assessment Addendum

(Technical Appendix 12.1A) document which provides further details of the transport

strategy, further detailed areas of clarification and further assessment of the

Proposed Development, reflecting the points raised by TfL, LBL and LBS in their

consultation responses on the Planning Application.

12.1.3. In addition to TfL, LBL and LBS there have also been transport related issues raised

by Millwall Football Club (MFC) relating to the level of car parking available to the

Football Club on a match day and non match day, the provision of coach parking and

movement to and from the Stadium. These matters are again detailed in the TA

Addendum (Technical Appendix 12.1A).

12.1.4. Since the submission of the ES in January 2011, there have also been a number of

changes to the Proposed Development as set out in Chapter 2 of this ES Addendum.

The changes to the Parameter Plans and the Development Specification include the

following items of relevance to this transport and movement Chapter:

A reduction in the maximum parameter of A1/A2 retail of 600 sq m;

A reduction in the maximum parameter of A3/A4 cafes/restaurants and drinking

establishments of 500 sq m.

A reduction in the maximum parameter of C1 hotels of 5,000 sq m;

A reduction in the maximum parameter of C3 residential of 20,000 sq m (100

units);

An increase in the minimum parameter of D2 leisure and assembly of 140 sq m to

provide for a replacement of the ground person’s store to the north of the

Stadium.


2

Extension of the red line of the Planning Application south of Surrey Canal Road

by 0.23 ha, by discretionary agreement with LBL, in order to facilitate the

permission of a proposed access road to the east of the Excelsior plots;

Alterations to the access arrangements to Plots Senegal 1 and 2 to provide two

alternatives;

The drawing back of Plot Bolina East from the Stadium and from the northern

boundary and the incorporation of coach parking, to meet operational concerns

raised by Millwall FC, and a new policy requirement to allow for the future

expansion of the Stadium;

The drawing back of the Plot Stadium Avenue away from the Stadium to allow

space for police and Sky TV operations, to meet other operational concerns

raised by Millwall FC, and new policy requirements to allow for the future

expansion of the Stadium;

The cutting away of part of the lower floors of Senegal 2 and the reshaping of the

Plot to allow for improved crowd movement to meet operational concerns raised

by Millwall FC, and new policy requirements to allow for the future expansion of

the Stadium;

The omission of Plots Stadium 1 and 2;

A reduction in car parking numbers from 1,146 to 1,103 (-43)

Amended proposed highways, parking and servicing parameters;

Amended landscape and open space parameters.

12.2 Policy Context

12.2.1. There have been no material changes to the policy context reported in the January

2011 ES Chapter 12. LBL’s Core Strategy was adopted by LBL on 29th June 2011.

The relevant policies within that document were referred to in the January 2011 ES

Chapter 12.

12.3 Methodology Assessment Criteria

12.3.1. There have been no changes to the methodology assessment criteria reported in the

January 2011 ES Chapter 12. The criteria of Driver Delay and Crowding on

Passenger Transport have been provided with an assessment in this addendum.


3

12.4 Aspects of the Proposed Development of Relevance to

Assessment

Level of Development / Traffic Generation

12.4.1. The January 2011 ES assessment was undertaken on the basis of a first principles

approach to trip generation. This was based on an assumed worst case of

development in terms of the level of trip generation in the peak hours. As a result of

recent changes to the Proposed Development, the footprint of the plots at Bolina

East, Senegal 2 and Stadium Avenue will be reduced in size and the Stadium 1 and

Stadium 2 plots are removed. On this basis the floor space of development proposed

will be reduced by approximately 5%. The January 2011 ES assessment was based

on a robust or worst case in terms of trip generation using the minimum and

maximum allowed parameters that are being applied for. The changes to the

Proposed Development will result in a lower level of floorspace than assessed

previously. This in turn will mean that the trip generation used in the assessments will

be greater still than the actual trip generation of the Proposed Development, as

amended.


12.5.1. There have been no changes to the baseline situation reported in the January 2011

ES Chapter 12.


12.6.1. The assessment in the Environmental Statement (January 2011) and the description

of the likely significant effects during both the construction and operational phases

relating to severance, pedestrian delay and amenity, fear and intimidation, accidents

and road safety, and dust and dirt remain unchanged. There are three criteria relating

to Transport and Movement where this addendum provides further assessment.

Firstly, it provides an assessment of the implications of driver delay taking account of

the further assessment and mitigation schemes being provided. Secondly, it provides

an assessment of crowding on public transport services, which has only been

possible upon both finalising the bus services to serve the Site as well as being

provided by rail patronage forecast data and bus patronage information from TfL.

Thirdly there is a revised assessment of the transport effects of construction.

12.6.2. In addition to the above assessment there is also a further consideration of the

assessment of effects on transport for new residents, or people using, working at or

passing through and around the Proposed Development on Millwall FC match days /

event days.


4

Driver Delay

12.6.3. As part of the post January 2011 discussions with TfL, an assessment of an

additional junction to the west of the Proposed Development has been undertaken.

This is in addition to the study area described in paragraph 12.3.41 of the January

2011 ES Chapter 12. The additional junction is that of the Old Kent Road (A2) and St

James Road. The table below demonstrates the forecast level of effect that the

Proposed Development would have upon the junction.

Table 12-1A: Level of traffic increase at the junction of St James Road and Old Kent Road

AM PM Sat

Flow Effect Flow Effect Flow Effect

Baseline 3377 3741 3495

Dev Flow 199 6% 237 6% 252 7%

12.6.4. The table above identifies that there would be an effect of 6% in the weekday AM and

PM peak hours and 7% on a Saturday peak on this junction. In light of this, further

detailed assessment of the junction has been undertaken in liaison with and using

traffic flow and signal timing information supplied by TfL. The results of this

assessment are reported in the Transport Assessment Addendum (Technical

Appendix 12.1A). TfL requested that this junction be assessed in terms of a ‘best

case’ assessment adding the Surrey Canal development traffic to the existing

baseline traffic flows as well as a ‘worst case’ where development flows associated

with other local developments are added to the junction as well. The results of this

further assessment are reported in the Transport Assessment Addendum (Technical

Appendix 12.1A) in detail and a summary of the findings is reported below.

12.6.5. The junction of Surrey Canal Road and Ilderton Road has also been the subject of

continuing discussion between Renewal, TfL, LBS and LBL. A revised scheme has

been developed to implement a widening of the western end of Surrey Canal Road to

provide a flared approach to the junction. This will provide capacity improvement and

reduce the delays to vehicles using this junction. Further assessment of the improved

junction has been undertaken and is reported in detail in the Transport Assessment

Addendum (Technical Appendix 12.1A) as well as below.

12.6.6. In addition to the above changes there has also been some further detailed changes

and additional information provided to TfL and LBL relating to junction assessments.

This is reported in the Transport Assessment Addendum (Technical Appendix 12.1A).

12.6.7. The assessment of driver delay / junction capacity is set out in detail in the Transport

Assessment Addendum and is summarized in the Table 12-2A.


5

Table 12-2A: Summary of Junction Assessments

Junction Summary of detailed junction assessment / mitigation identified

Effect on driver delay

Ilderton Road / Old

Kent Road

‘Best’ case assessment without other committed

development is within capacity in AM and PM

weekday and Saturday assessments

Minor, adverse effect

Rollins Street /

Ilderton Road

Junction operates within capacity Neutral

Surrey Canal Road

/ Ilderton Road

Junction operates over capacity in base situation.

Combination of junction improvement and

improvements to accessibility of the wider area

achieves a nil detriment solution

Without mitigation

Moderate Adverse

effect

With Mitigation neutral

Surrey Canal Road

/ pedestrian

crossing

Operates within capacity but adds an additional set

of traffic lights to traffic


Ilderton Road /

Stockholm Road


Ilderton Road /

Zampa Road /

Verney Road


Ilderton Road /

Rotherhithe New

Road

Amendment to the staging of the junction identified

(no physical amendment). Junction operates within

capacity with this change

Without mitigation Minor

Adverse effect

With mitigation Neutral

Lower Road

Gyratory

Operates within capacity Neutral

St James Road /

Old Kent Road

‘Best’ case assessment is within capacity in AM

and PM weekday and Saturday assessments.


Overall efffect on Driver Delay (Surrey Canal only) Minor, adverse effect

12.6.8. Further details relating to the above capacity assessments are included in the

Transport Assessment Addendum report (Technical Appendix 12.1A).

12.6.9. The Proposed Development has reduced in floorspace. This in turn results in a low

level of traffic effect to that summarised above. The above assessment therefore

represents a conservative worst case.


6

Crowding on public transport services

12.6.10. The assessment below supplements paragraph 12.8.9 of the January 2011 ES

chapter in relation to crowding on the bus and rail network. This assessment is only

possible following agreement reached on the bus services that are to serve the Site

and having now been provided by TfL with data of bus patronage and forecasts of

future rail capacity.

12.6.11. The paragraphs below outline the bus and rail forecasts for the AM peak period (the

busiest hour) for the Proposed Development. It apportions the trips to suitable

services and compares the forecasts to data supplied by TfL on available bus and

rail capacity. There is a greater level of capacity available on the network in the PM

peak hour than in the AM peak, combined with fewer trips to and from the Proposed

Development in the PM peak. As a result the AM peak figures represent the

‘busiest hour’ worst case scenario.

12.6.12. Bus trips from/to the Application Site will have their origin/destination in a number of

key areas including New Cross, Lewisham, Bermondsey and Central London.

Journeys have been attributed to the network based on proximity to the Proposed

Development and the frequency of the service. TfL’s Busiest Hour Analysis Report

data has been used to show the available capacity on the network and this is

summarised in Table 12-3A below:

Table 12-3A: Additional trips by route and available capacity

12.6.13. Table 12-3A indicates that there is sufficient spare seating capacity on all of the

main services. As shown, the 225 service is unlikely to have a significant change in

passenger demand. This is as a result of the new Lewisham service being provided

directly from the Proposed Development. This new service will also increase the

capacity along much of the 225 route. Whilst TfL has not been able to provide

further data on the P12 service there is anecdotal evidence which has been

confirmed by TfL in meetings that this service has sufficient capacity.

Bus route Additional trips per peak hour

Total existing trips at busiest point

Total spare capacity

1 44 502 268

225 8 No data No data

381 44 372 420

415 58 0 350

P12 76 No data No data

New Lewisham service 77 0 120

Total 307


7

12.6.14. The new bus services will provide additional capacity to the wider local area and

also provide an interchange with the new Surrey Canal Station on the East London

Line Extension. Therefore the services will benefit existing local residents.

12.6.15. In terms of rail capacity, forecasts from the January 2011 Transport Assessment

identified that rail trips from/to the Application Site will have their origin/destination

in a number of key areas, but are predominantly focused on central London.

These, together with the number of trips expected to each destination in the busiest

peak hour (i.e. outbound from the Site in the AM peak hour) were analysed. Table

12-4A below indicates the numbers of additional trips on each route and uses

Railplan data supplied by TfL for 2016 to calculate the spare capacity on trains at

their busiest point:

Table 12-4A: Rail additional trips and capacity

Rail route Additional trips per peak hour

Total existing trips

Total spare capacity

South Bermondsey to London Bridge

291 5,800 2,509

Surrey Canal Road to Surrey Quays

322 2,400 78

Surrey Quays to West Croydon

17 No data No data

12.6.16. This review indicates that a spare capacity is available on the London Overground

line to Surrey Quays, but considerably more is available at South Bermondsey

towards London Bridge. On the basis of the above assessment of both rail and bus

crowding and capacity it is considered that the Proposed Development will have a

minor beneficial effect in terms of providing additional seating capacity on buses

both to Lewisham and to Elephant & Castle.

Construction Effect

12.6.17. In terms of the transport construction effect this was discussed in paragraphs

12.6.28 to 12.6.33 of the January 2011 ES Chapter 12. As a result of changes in

the Proposed Development relating primarily to plots around the Stadium the

implications for construction effect will be altered. The reduction in basement

footprint below Bolina East results in a minor reduction in the expected excavation

arising during construction from a site wide volume of 129,000m3 used in the

January 2011 assessment to 125,000m3 now proposed. This represents a

reduction of 3% by volume. In the context of the assessment this is not significant

and the Proposed Development , as amended, results in slightly less excavation

arising than that already assessed, so it is considered that the assessment already

undertaken based on 129,000m3 represents a conservative worst case. There is


8

no change in relation to the significance of the transport environmental effects

identified in the January 2011 assessment.

Effect of Stadium / Event Day Activity

12.6.18. The Proposed Development has been designed to accommodate movement to and

from the Stadium. Access is improved to the Stadium in terms of the following

providing the new Surrey Canal Station,

providing new bus services to Lewisham and Elephant & Castle,

improving the access to South Bermondsey station

improving pedestrian crossing provision on Surrey Canal Road

12.6.19. In addition the Proposed Development has been amended to improve the

pedestrian routing by the drawing back of Plot Bolina East from the Stadium and

from the northern boundary, the drawing back of the Plot Stadium Avenue away

from the Stadium and the cutting away of part of the lower floors of Senegal 2 and

the reshaping of the Plot to improve crowd movement. These changes also ensure

the segregation of home and away supporters and for away coach access. A Travel

Plan and Events Strategy are proposed. Further details of these measures are

contained in the Transport Assessment Addendum (Technical Appendix 12.1A).

12.6.20. The assessment below relates to the new residents, or people using, working at or

passing through and around the Proposed Development on a match day relating to

the busy crowd conditions that exist. All of these effects are short term in nature

and the number of home matches per year is limited to the fixtures of the club in a

season, i.e. 23 league games plus cup games. In addition to football matches

Millwall FC also have permission to hold 8 concerts per year, 2 musical festivals per

year, a total of 33 specified types of events (but a maximum of 10 non-football

events with more than 2,500 spectators allowed on weekdays); and unlimited

events with less than 2,500 spectators and without amplified music at the Stadium.

12.6.21. Severance – this refers to the effect of traffic levels on pedestrian movements.

Millwall FC would have 150 on-site parking spaces retained for match day use. The

management of those spaces is covered further in the TA Addendum (Technical

Appendix 12.1A). During match days as part of the crowd control the police may

temporarily close roads (as they do currently). The area between Plot Bolina East

and the Stadium will have segregation lines to ensure segregation between home

and away supporters. The Police would also utilise some areas of the public realm

for their operations. It is not considered that the traffic levels associated with the

Millwall FC parking would have a material effect in terms of severance, given the


9

Assessment Criteria. The police operations may result in a minor adverse effect,

albeit temporary in nature.

12.6.22. Driver Delay – it is considered likely that there would be periods of delay to

residents, or people using, working at or passing through and around the Proposed

Development in terms of access / egress to car parks. This is likely to result in

periods of waiting for crowds to dissipate. The Stadium does empty over a short

period of time (typically 70% of the crowd within 5 minutes). Therefore it is

considered that this effect is minor adverse in nature but would only be temporary

in nature.

12.6.23. Pedestrian delay and amenity – pedestrian delay and amenity relates to the

interaction between traffic levels and pedestrians. Residents or people using,

working at or passing through and around the Proposed Development will be

sharing the spaces with crowds on match days. The development is designed to

accommodate these pedestrian flows. It is considered that there would be a minor

adverse effect related to the ability to cross the roads as a result of match day

activity. Amenity relates more to the physical provision for pedestrians and the

Proposed Development has been designed to accommodate match day crowds.

12.6.24. Fear and intimidation – this Assessment Criteria relates to the fear and intimidation

as a result of the interaction between pedestrians and traffic, particularly large

vehicles. It is not an assessment of security or personal safety. With limited traffic

generated by Millwall FC this is unlikely to be significant. There would be coach

movements, police vehicles and emergency service vehicles which are large in

nature but their routing, location within the Site and the low speed they would be

travelling at would not result in a material effect on fear and intimidation.

12.6.25. Accidents and road safety – with match day conditions the speed of traffic is likely

to be reduced and as such the likelihood and severity of accidents is low. As a

result it is not considered that this would be changed on match days.

12.6.26. Dust and Dirt – this would not be worsened by the match day conditions.

12.6.27. Crowding on public transport services – the match day attendance at the Stadium

would have an effect in terms of the crowding of both rail and bus services locally.

The nature of the match day travel will result in a period of intense demand (70% of

the crowd would leave the Stadium within a 5 minute period). However, there is

very limited data available in relation to these time periods in terms of crowding

outside of the traditional peak hours.

12.6.28. The majority of the activity on match days would not coincide with the highest levels

of trip making from the Proposed Development, being at the weekend. There would


10

be a greater effect expected on weekday evening matches / events with supporters

arriving in the early evening. In addition to the timing of events, where people are

travelling from is also material to the effect. The majority of Millwall FC supporters

would be travelling from the south and east to the Stadium from Bexley, Greenwich,

Southwark and Lewisham as described further in Section 12 of the TA Addendum

(Technical Appendix 12.1A). The majority of the Proposed Development public

transport trips would be travelling north of the Site as described further in Section

5.5 of the TA Addendum (Technical Appendix 12.1A). Therefore the majority of

Proposed Development public transport trips would be arriving from a different

direction and on different services (particularly by bus) to the majority of Millwall FC

supporters.

12.6.29. It is considered that, depending on the scale of attendance which does vary

significantly, the effect on the residents, employees, visitors, or people passing

through or around the Proposed Development (the sensitive receptors) would be a

moderate adverse effect in terms of crowding on passenger transport, albeit one

that is temporary in nature and only occurs a limited number of times throughout

the year (23 home league matches, cup games and event days).

12.7 Mitigation Measures

12.7.1 The January 2011 ES Chapter 12 provides details of the mitigation package to be

provided in association with the Proposed Development. The paragraphs below

provide further clarification on these mitigation measures. Further details are

provided in the Transport Assessment Addendum in Technical Appendix 12.1A.

Pedestrian Improvements

12.7.2. There has also been further discussion concerning the improvement of pedestrian

routes surrounding the Site. Eight off-site pedestrian improvements were identified in

the original TA. Table 12-5A provides further information on the details associated

with each off-site measure.


11

Table 12-5A: Pedestrian Improvements

Pedestrian Improvement

Details In partnership with local authority / TfL / Network Rail / Sustrans

1 Zampa Road/ Stockholm Road Footway

Increase footway width and improve lighting on sections of Zampa Road and Stockholm Road between Ilderton Road and the red line boundary. Improvements to the railway arches along these sections as discussed in pedestrian improvement 2 below.

LBS

2 Railway Arches and Underpasses

Lighting and cleaning of railway arches within the red line and along Zampa Road, Stockholm Road, Bolina Road, Rollins Street and to the route of the ELLE, taking into account works by Rail for London on the footpath alongside the ELLE.

LBL / TfL / Network Rail

3 Improved Pedestrian and Cycle Links to Bridgehouse Meadows

Improve the pedestrian access route from Surrey Canal Road to Bridge House Meadows.

LBL / TfL

4 Pedestrian and Cycle Link to South Bermondsey Station

Direct pedestrian and cycle link to South Bermondsey Station from the Proposed Development. An Interim link is being investigated by JMP and would be complete between January 2014 to April 2015 to coincide with Thameslink Works.

LBS / LBL / Network Rail / Sustrans

5 Lighting along pedestrian route to Surrey Quays Station

Provide street lighting from Bolina Road, along Silwood Road to Surrey Quays station. This is an extension to the planned TfL/LBL lighting project by a few hundred metres.

LBL

6 Improvements to Silwood Street

Street lighting and widening of pavements along Silwood Street.

LBL

7 Pedestrian crossing on Surrey Canal Road

Provide a wide signalised crossing on Surrey Canal Road linked to pedestrian connections on-site.

LBL

8 Rollins Street S106 contribution to traffic calming along Rollins Street to create an improved pedestrian environment.

LBL

9 Legible London (Throughout Site and Local Area)

S106 contribution towards Legible London signage for the Proposed Development to aid wayfinding for pedestrians through the railway arches and around the Proposed Development.

LBL / LBS / TfL

Bus Strategy

12.7.3. The bus strategy to serve the Proposed Development has been the subject of further

consideration by TfL since January 2011. Following consultation with TfL and LBL, a

revised strategy has been developed which provides two new bus routes to the

Proposed Development:

Extension of service 415 (Tulse Hill to Elephant & Castle) to Surrey Canal

Road station (every 12 minutes daytimes, every 20 minutes evenings and

Sundays); and

Provision of a new service between the development and Lewisham (every

20 minutes daytime, every 30 minutes evenings and Sundays).

12.7.4. Both of these services will provide considerable enhancement to the accessibility of

the Proposed Development as well as the wider community in the surrounding area

by providing higher frequencies on some sections of route, connection to the new

Surrey Canal Station and extra direct links not currently possible by bus. This


12

provision replaces that described in paragraphs 12.7.8 and 12.7.9 of the January

2011 ES Chapter 12.

Surrey Canal Road Station

12.7.5. Since the date of the submission of the Planning Application in January 2011, further

discussions have been undertaken in relation to the date of delivery of elements of

the transport package. As part of these discussions Renewal has committed to bridge

the funding gap along with LBL to deliver Surrey Canal Station at the outset of the

Proposed Development. This will result in significant enhancements to the

accessibility of the Proposed Development and the wider area from its earliest

phases.


12.8.1 There are no changes to the summary of residual effects from those set out in the

January 2011 ES. Further assessments in relation to both Driver Delay, a minor

adverse effect, and Crowding on Public Transport Services, a minor beneficial effect,

have been identified.

12.9 Opportunities for Future Mitigation Measures

12.9.1 The January 2011 ES Chapter 12 provided some details of the Travel Plan to serve

the Proposed Development. Further details of the management, operation and

delivery of the Travel Plan is provided to the Transport Assessment Addendum

(Technical Appendix 12.1A).


12.10.1. The assessment in the Environmental Statement (January 2011) of the cumulative

effects of the Proposed Development relating to severance, pedestrian delay and

amenity, fear and intimidation, accidents and road safety, and dust and dirt remain

unchanged. There are two criteria relating to Transport and Movement where this

addendum provides further assessment of cumulative effect. Firstly, it provides an

assessment of the implications of cumulative driver delay, secondly it provides an

assessment of the cumulative effect of crowding on public transport services.

Driver delay

12.10.2. The assessments made above on driver delay include traffic associated with other

committed developments with the exception of the ‘best case’ assessments on the

Old Kent Road junctions. These junctions have been tested without the additional

committed development traffic. In addition to these tests a ‘worst case’ assessment


13

has also been undertaken for the two junctions on Old Kent Road to demonstrate

the implication of the cumulative effect on the capacity of those junctions. Table 12-

6A below summarises the results for those ‘worst case’ cumulative assessments.

The full assessments are provided in the Transport Assessment Addendum

(Technical Appendix 12.1A).

Table 12-6A: Cumulative Effect on Driver Delay

Junction Summary of detailed junction assessment / mitigation identified

Effect on driver delay

Ilderton Road / Old

Kent Road

Cumulative ‘worst’ case assessment is within

capacity in AM and PM weekday assessment and

approaching capacity on a Saturday.

A sum of money secured in the S106 against future

junction performance which could be used to

investigate increasing cycle times across the

SCOOT region or other measures

Worst Case (cumulative

effect) Minor, adverse,

With mitigation Neutral

St James Road /

Old Kent Road

In the cumulative ‘worst’ case assessment the

junction operates over capacity in AM and PM

weekday assessment and Saturday assessment.

A sum of money secured in the S106 against future

junction performance which could be used to

investigate increasing cycle times across the

SCOOT region or other measures

Worst Case (cumulative

effect) Moderate,

adverse effect

With mitigation Minor

Adverse effect

Overall effect on Driver Delay cumulative effect (‘worst’ case assessment)

without mitigation

Moderate, adverse

effect

Overall effect on Driver Delay cumulative effect (‘worst’ case assessment)

with mitigation


12.10.3. It is considered that the implication of the cumulative effect on driver delay would be

a Moderate Adverse effect without mitigation. However the mitigation that has been

identified in liaison with TfL, through management through SCOOT, etc, (should it

be required) would reduce the cumulative effect to Minor Adverse.

Crowding on public transport services

12.10.4. The assessment made above on the capacity of the rail network includes

passenger growth and changes to the network, as this is inherent in the forecast

data available. The bus patronage is unlikely to be significantly changed as a result

of the committed developments, given the amount of additional capacity provided

by the new service to Lewisham and extended service to Elephant and Castle and


14

the location of the other sites concerned. On that basis it is considered that the

implication of the cumulative effect would also be a Minor Beneficial effect.

12.1 A Transport Assessment addendum and Appendices can

be found in Folder 2.04 and 2.05 Vol. 4 addendum

Environmental Statement Transport Assessment Report and

Appendices, July 2011

Noise and Vibration addendum, July 2011

1

13. Noise and Vibration addendum, July 2011

13.1 Introduction

13.1.1 The Environmental Statement submitted as part of the Planning Application for the Proposed

Development in January 2011 included, at Chapter 13, an assessment of potential noise and

vibration effects arising from the construction effects, operational effects and residential

suitability.

13.1.2 Following the submission of the Planning Application, requests for clarification have been

received from the London Borough of Lewisham (LBL). These points are addressed in this

addendum. There have also been changes to the Proposed Development, including the

Development Specification, in the matter of noise which also require the information in the

Chapter to be updated.

13.2 Policy Context

13.2.1 The national, regional and local planning policies of relevance to noise and vibration remain

as set out in ES Chapter 13, January 2011.


13.3.1 Changes to the Commitments set out in the Development Specification, included at Technical

Appendix 2.1A of this Addendum, have been made in relation to internal noise levels within

residential accommodation within the Proposed Development. These are as follows;

‘Buildings shall be constructed so as to provide sound insulation against external noise, to

achieve levels not exceeding 30dB LAeg and 45dB LAmax (night) for bedrooms, 35dB LAeg (day)

for other habitable rooms, with windows shut and other means of ventilation provided. The

ventilation shall be designed to avoid the intake of air from the Surrey Canal Road side of the

site.’

Day and night are defined as 07:00 – 23:00 and 23:00 – 07:00 respectively.

13.3.2 All other criteria are as set out in ES Chapter 13, January 2011.

13.4 Aspects of the Proposed Development of Relevance to the Assessment

13.4.1 The Proposed Development as amended is not significantly different to the scheme originally

considered within the January 2011 ES and the noise effects are expected to be

correspondingly similar.


2


13.5.1 The baseline scenario remains unchanged form that set out in ES Chapter 13, January 2011.

13.5.2 To clarify, the short term measurements in Table 3.6 of the January 2011 ES were made

over 15 minute periods.


South Bermondsey Station Announcements

13.6.1 The effects from station announcements from South Bermondsey Station are set out in

paragraphs 13.5.8 and 13.5.7 of the January 2011 ES.

13.6.2 To clarify, the noise level from station announcements at a platform location has been

measured to demonstrate the extent of the effect that would arise at the closest noise

sensitive receptors (Bolina North). Announcements are made before each train arrives.

There are also programmed safety announcements. It is estimated that there is a maximum of

around 20 such announcements in one hour.

Table 13.21 : Noise levels from Station Announcements

Average duration LAeq (dB) LAmax (dB)

20 secs 53 @ 4m 60 @ 4m

13.6.3 Observations made on the platform note that the noise levels from the announcements are

considerably less than those arising from the train movements on the line. The effect of the

announcements on the Proposed Development, the LAmax level within residential uses within

the closest residential uses has been considered and are presented in Table13. 22.

Table 13.22: Calculation of LAmax Levels Within the Closest Proposed Residential

Properties

LAmax at 4m 60 dB

Distance attenuation Bolina North 17 dB

Minimum attenuation from open window (Ref BS 8233) 10 dB

LAmax within closest dwellings 33 dB

Nightime internal LAmax (Ref: BS8233) 45 dB


3

13.6.4 From the Table above, it can be seen that the predicted LAmax from announcements is 12 dB

below the maximum level in BS8233 given as guidance for night-time noise. On this basis,

no significant effect is predicted at the closest noise sensitive point to the station and as such

is determined not to be significant for the Proposed Development, as amended, as a whole.

Potential Receptors, Construction Phase

13.6.5 The main effects of noise and vibration at all receptor points during the construction phase

have been detailed within Table 13.12 of the January 2011 ES. Ilderton Road, affected as it is

primarily by road traffic noise, will not experience the effects of construction noise to the same

extent as those properties at greater distance from main roads which have been assessed.

Noise Levels Within Proposed Residential Properties

13.6.6 As noted in 13.3.1 above, these internal noise levels have been revised in the Development

Specification. Changes to the Accommodation Schedule, also included in Technical Appendix

2.1A, have been remodeled. The principal changes that have required reassessment are

alterations to the heights and footprint of some plots, for example Bolina East and Senegal

Way 2 and the relationship of the Proposed Development with Millwall FC Stadium.

13.6.7 The SoundPLAN acoustic models for combined road and rail have been re run using the

revised Parameter Plan to define the footprints and heights of the plots. These results are

shown in Tables 13.14A and 13.15A which replace Tables 13.14 and 13.15 in the January

2011 ES.

13.6.8 The model has also been run to see the effects of rail alone. The model has been run for this

condition for the daytime and night-time periods, and the results are presented in Tables

13.23 and 13.24 below.

Table 13.14A : Predicted combined road and rail noise levels without East London Line

Extension and Thameslink Works 07:00 - 23:00

Plot Predicted LAeq (dB)

Required internal noise

environment windows

closed (dB)

Minimum sound

insulation thermal

insulating units

(6-12-6) (dB)

Achieved internal noise

environment windows

closed (dB)

Bolina East 46 - 61 35 33 13 - 28

Bolina North 1 58 - 62 35 33 25 - 29

Bolina North 2 54 - 60 35 33 21 - 27

Bolina West 48 - 63 35 33 15 - 30

Excelsior 1 70 - 72 35 33 37 – 391

Excelsior 3 49 - 66 35 33 16 - 33

Excelsior 4 60 - 62 35 33 27 - 29

Excelsior 5 58 - 63 35 33 25 - 30


4

Orion 46 - 70 35 33 13 - 372

Senegal Way 48 - 61 35 33 15 - 28

Stadium Avenue 52 - 62 35 33 19 - 29

Stockholm 1 53 - 69 35 33 20 – 363

Stockholm 2 58 - 69 35 33 25 – 364

Timber Wharf 1 54 - 74 35 33 21 - 412

Timber Wharf 2 61 - 64 35 33 28 - 31 1 At 1.5m to 13.5m AOD facing Surrey Canal Road

2 At 1.5m to 25.5m AOD facing Surrey Canal Road




Table 13.15A : Predicted combined road and rail noise levels with East London Line

Extension and Thameslink Works 07:00 – 23:00


Required internal noise

environment windows closed

(dB)

Minimum sound insulation thermal

insulating units (6-12-6) (dB)

Achieved internal noise environment

windows closed (dB)

Bolina East 46 - 61 35 33 13 - 28

Bolina North 1 59 - 62 35 33 26 - 29

Bolina North 2 54 - 61 35 33 21 - 28

Bolina West 48 - 63 35 33 15 - 30

Excelsior 1 70 - 72 35 33 37 - 391

Excelsior 3 64 - 71 35 33 31 – 382

Excelsior 4 62 - 63 35 33 29 – 30

Excelsior 5 60 - 65 35 33 27 – 32

Orion 49 - 70 35 33 16 – 373

Senegal Way 61 - 67 35 33 28 - 34

Stadium Avenue

52 - 62 35 33 19 - 29

Stockholm 1 54 - 69 35 33 21 – 364

Stockholm 2 59 - 70 35 33 26 – 375

Timber Wharf 1 54 - 74 35 33 21 – 416

Timber Wharf 2 62 - 65 35 33 29 - 32 1 At 1.5m to 13.5m AOD facing Surrey Canal Road

2 At 1.5m to 25.5m AOD facing Surrey Canal Road and at 1.5m to 10.5m AOD facing ELL

3 At 1.5m to 25.5m AOD facing Surrey Canal Road and at 4.5m to 31.5m AOD facing ELL




Table 13.23 : Predicted combined rail noise levels with East London Line Extension

and Thameslink Works only daytime 07:00 – 23:00


Required internal noise environment

windows closed (dB)

Minimum sound

insulation thermal

insulating units (6-


windows closed (dB)


5

12-6) (dB)

Bolina East 39 - 61 35 33 6 - 28

Bolina North 1 41 - 59 35 33 8 - 26

Bolina North 2 41 - 60 35 33 8 - 27

Bolina West 40 - 53 35 33 7 - 20

Excelsior 1 58 - 59 35 33 25 - 26

Excelsior 3 60 - 71 35 33 27 - 381

Excelsior 4 56 - 58 35 33 23 - 25

Excelsior 5 55 - 61 35 33 22 - 28

Orion 47 - 70 35 33 14 - 372

Senegal Way 61 - 67 35 33 28 - 34

Stadium Avenue 42 - 49 35 33 9 - 16

Stockholm 1 42 - 56 35 33 9 - 23

Stockholm 2 50 - 64 35 33 17 - 31

Timber Wharf 1 45 - 54 35 33 12 - 21

Timber Wharf 2 50 - 55 35 33 17 - 22 1 At 1.5m to 19.5m AOD facing East London Line

2 At 1.5m to 10.5m AOD facing East London Line

Table 13.24 : Predicted combined rail noise levels with East London Line Extension

and Thameslink Works only night-time 23:00 – 07:00


Required internal noise environment

windows closed (dB)

Minimum sound

insulation thermal

insulating units (6-

12-6) (dB)


windows closed (dB)

Bolina East 30 - 58

30 33 3 - 25

Bolina North 1 38 - 56

30 33 5 - 23

Bolina North 2 38 - 57

30 33 8 - 24

Bolina West 37 - 50

30 33 4 - 17

Excelsior 1 55 - 56

30 33 22 - 23

Excelsior 3 57 - 68

30 33 24 – 351

Excelsior 4 53 - 55

30 33 20 - 22

Excelsior 5 52 - 58

30 33 19 - 25

Orion 44 - 67

30 33 11 - 342

Senegal Way 58 - 64

30 33 25 - 313

Stadium Avenue 39 - 46

30 33 6 - 13

Stockholm 1 39 - 53

30 33 6 - 20

Stockholm 2 47 - 61

30 33 14 - 28


6

Timber Wharf 1 42 - 51

30 33 9 - 18

Timber Wharf 2 47 - 52

30 33 14 - 19 1 At 4.5m to 25.5m AOD facing East London Line



13.6.9 Tables 13.14 and 13.15 in the January 2011 ES list the internal noise levels achieved by

thermal glazing. The lowest sound insulation value given in BS8233 for this glazing format

has been used. There is scope therefore to meet any enhanced standard that may be

required as part of the design. This Addendum updates the January 2011 ES in respect of

the changes to the Development Specification.

Construction Traffic Routes

13.6.10 The construction routes remain as set out in Section 13 of the January 2011 Transport

Assessment.

Crowd Noise and Concerts at Millwall Stadium.

13.6.11 The noise and vibration chapter of the January 2011 ES did not include an explicit

assessment of the possible noise impacts from crowds attending football matches, matches

held on Sundays or the Millwall FC Stadium being used for music events as specified in upon

proposed residential properties when going to, and leaving the stadium, including likely routes

supporters take and entrances / exits at the stadium

13.6.12 To clarify, most of the sound generated is from football crowds on match days at Millwall FC

and this has been included in the January 2011 assessment. The sound levels from Sunday

matches are likely to be no different than those from other matches. Sunday matches are not

likely to be evening matches. The Noise Council ‘Code of Practice on Environmental Noise

Control at Concerts’ guidance indicates that for up to a maximum of 12 events each calendar

year at a venue the music noise level, measured as an LAeq,15 minutes, should not exceed the

background noise level (measured LA90 for the last 4 hours of the duration of the event) by

more than 15 dB. This would permit concert noise levels of up to LAeq 62 dB at the Plots

closest to the Stadium and LAeq 67 dB in the vicinity of Rollins House. These levels have

been derived from the baseline noise surveys provided in Technical Appendix 13.1 to the

January 2011 ES. The façade levels calculated are similar to those from football matches (as

detailed in Table 13.8 in the January 2011ES Chapter).

13.6.13 The noise from spectators arriving has been included in the overall sound profile which covers

a period of 6 hours for a 90 minute match with half time.

13.6.14 Internal noise levels during matches have been calculated to be between LAeq,T 37 -39 dB.

The reference façade levels in Table 13.8 of the January 2011 ES note that 33 dB attenuation


7

can be expected from thermal insulation. This is the lower level of the range that can be

expected from thermal insulating glazing as specified in Table 10 BS8233. A higher

specification can be provided to attenuate the most affected sensitive facades and will be

considered at detailed planning stage.

13.6.15 Where windows are closed to achieve the internal noise levels in the Development

Specification, acoustically treated ventilation will be required. The specification of this

ventilation will be included in the detailed façade calculations as the detailed design

progresses.

Construction and Demolition Plant

13.6.16 Tables 13.25 to 13.27 below provide the details of the construction model plant inputs and

assumptions. These were omitted from Technical Appendix 13.3 to the ES of January 2011:

Table 13.25 Construction assessment input data

Element name 63Hz 125Hz 250Hz 500Hz 1kHz 2kHz 4kHz 8kHz reference

Concrete Mixer Truck

(Discharging) & Concrete Pump

(Pumping) . (4.28) 107 108 101 100 97 96 87 81 unit

Diesel Generator . (4.77) 98 90 90 85 81 80 76 69 unit

Diesel Generator . (4.87) 105 100 92 88 87 85 82 70 unit

Dozer . (2.12) 113 102 104 101 100 106 90 84 unit

Dumper (Idling) . (4.5) 101 92 83 83 88 84 78 71 unit

Dumper (Idling) . (4.5) (x 2) 101 92 83 83 88 84 78 71 unit

Lorry. (2.34) (dB/m of line

source) [100 mpd] 70 75 75 75 71 70 65 63 metre

Poker Vibrator . (4.34) 90 98 98 92 90 89 87 84 unit

Pulverizer Mounted on

Excavator . (1.4) 103 100 99 101 98 97 94 87 unit

Tower Crane . (4.48) 110 105 108 104 94 94 84 78 unit

Tracked Excavator . (2.14) 113 106 105 105 101 99 96 91 unit

Tracked Mobile Crane . (3.29) 101 92 83 83 88 84 78 71 unit

Reverse Alarm 105 unit


8

Table 13.26 : On Times Demolition Phases

Item On-time

Pulverizer mounted on excavator 80%

Lorry (Model based on 50 vehicles entering and leaving site per day) 100%

Dumper Idling (x2) 100%

Dozer 80%

Tracked Excavator 80%

Table 13.27 : On Times Construction phases

Item On-time

Diesel Generator (x2) 100%

Lorry (Model based on 50 vehicles entering and leaving site per day) 100%

Dumper Idling 100%

Concrete mixer & pump 100%

Poker vibrator 80%

Tower crane (source height: 40m) 50%

Tracked Mobile crane 50%

Reverse Alarm 50%

Operational Noise

13.6.17 Paragraph 13.6.35 of the January 2011 ES refers to sources of operational noise, but makes

no reference to noise from sports activities, or the multi-faith centre, and its potential impacts

on the dwellings above or facing the areas concerned.

13.6.18 To clarify, the main noise will be from air handling plant which has been covered in the

January 2011 ES chapter. The buildings will be designed to attenuate the noise to local,

national and international guidance levels.

13.6.19 Noise from vehicles accessing the multi-faith centre have been included in the traffic flow

data as part of the global traffic generation for the site. The potential for noise disturbance

from the congregation leaving the multi-faith centre is considered below.

13.6.20 It is noted that this is not a quiet area even in the early hours of the morning (reference

receptor ST-03 as reported in Table 13.6 in the January 2011 ES). The area is already


9

subject to elevated maximum noise levels of LAmax 81 dB at between 02:00 and 03:00. It is

considered unlikely that maximum noise levels generated by the congregation would exceed

this and hence noise from this source is unlikely to be significant.

Noise from Railways

13.6.21 The method used to gather the input data for the railway noise assessment , included railway

flows from 4 separate hours of observations during different parts of day and on different

dates, including the rush hour period as shown in Table 13.28 below;

Table 13.28 : Dates and Times of Rail Flow Observations

Date Time Period

29.09.10

14:12 – 15:12

21.10.10

12:10 – 13;10

10.11.10 07:35 – 08:35

18.11.10 15:10 – 16:10

13.6.22 Consultation was also undertaken with Network Rail and the Freight Carriers to determine the

passenger and freight flows on the lines. Thameslink Works and ELLX documentation,

including the ES for ELLX as referenced in the January 2100 ES, was consulted to derive

these flows, and reference was made to railway timetables. The split between day and night

has been based on online timetables 1,2,3. Trains are running for the full 16 hour daytime

period between 07:00 – 23:00, and for four hours for the night-time period between 23:00

and 07:00.

13.6.23 Figure 13.4 in the January 2011 ES shows the effects of noise from the railways, and, in

particular, of ELLX.

13.7 Opportunities for Further Mitigation Measures

13.7.1 The opportunities for further effect remain as set out in ES Chapter 13, January 2011.


13.8.1 The summary of residual effects remains as set out in ES Chapter 13, January 2011.


10


13.9.1 The cumulative effects are not expected to differ from those set out in ES Chapter 13, January

2011. Correspondingly potential cumulative effects would not be considered significant as part

of any baseline consideration or in conjunction with the completion of the Proposed

Development.

References

1. Southern Railway website www.southernrailway.com

2. Southeastern Railway website www.southeasterrailway.co.uk

3. Fisrt Capital Connect website www.firstcapitalconnect.co.uk

All other references remain as set out in the January 2011 ES chapter.

http://www.southernrailway.com/

http://www.southeasterrailway.co.uk/

http://www.firstcapitalconnect.co.uk/

Air Quality addendum, July 2011

1

14. Air Quality addendum, July 2011

14.1 Introduction

14.1.1 Chapter 14 of the Environmental Statement (January 2011) describes the likely significant

effects of the Proposed Development with respect to air quality during both the construction

and operational phases. The Chapter is supported by Technical Appendix 14.1.

14.1.2 Following the submission of the ES in January 2011, changes have been made to the

Parameter Plans and Development Specification as set out in Chapter 2 of this Addendum.

This Chapter provides a reassessment of the Proposed Development as amended, defines

additional assessment criteria, and provides clarification and further information on relevant

matters.

14.2 Policy Context

14.2.1 There have been no changes to the national policies and strategies as set out in the January

2011 ES.

14.2.2 The Consolidated Draft Replacement London Plan was published by the Mayor in December

2010 and was subject to an EiP Panel Report in May 2011. Policy 7.14 relates to improving

air quality and with respect to planning decisions, and states:

Development proposals should:

a) minimise increased exposure to existing poor air quality and make provision to address

local problems of air quality (particularly within AQMAs or where development is likely to be

used by large numbers of those particularly vulnerable to poor air quality, such as children or

older people) such by design solutions, buffer zones or steps to promote greater use of

sustainable transport modes through travel plans (see Policy 6.3);

b) promote sustainable design and construction to reduce emissions from the demolition and

construction of buildings following the best practice guidance in the GLA and London Councils

“The control, of dust and emissions form construction and demolition”;

c) be at least “air quality neutral” and not lead to further deterioration of existing poor air

quality (such as areas designated as Air Quality Management Areas(AQMAs);

d) ensure that where provision needs to made to reduce emissions from a development,

these usually are made on site. Where it can be demonstrated that on-sire provision is

impractical or inappropriate, and that it is possible to pout in place measures having clearly

demonstrated equivalent air quality benefits, planning obligations or planning conditions


2

should be used as appropriate to ensure this, whether on a scheme by scheme basis or

through joint area-based approaches.

14.2.3 The LBL Core Strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State in October 2010. Following

receipt of the Planning Inspectors report, the Council has incorporated the recommended

changes to the Core Strategy which was adopted on 29 June 2011. Core Strategy Policy 9

addresses improving local air quality:

The Council will seek to improve local air quality and minimise any negative impacts by:

a) supporting a coordinated and partnership approach to implement a national policy, London

pan policy and the actions outlined in the Council’s Air Quality Management Plan

b) working with Transport for London to manage and improve air quality along transport

corridors and traffic congestion points

c) working with all businesses, including SELCHP, within Lewisham to manage and improve

air quality.

14.3 Assessment Criteria

14.3.1 There have been no changes to the assessment criteria as set out in the January 2011 ES.

However, it is appropriate to cite additional health-based criteria.

14.3.2 The criteria are set out in Tables 14.1 and 14.2, and have been derived from guidance issued

by the Environment Agency (1).

14.3.3 The Environment Agency‟s guidance in H1 also provides criteria to screen out insignificant

process contributions. Process contributions can be considered to be insignificant if:

The long-term process contribution is <1% of the long-term environmental standard;

and

The short-term process contribution is <10% of the short-term environmental

standard.

These screening criteria apply regardless of whether the environmental standard is exceeded.


3

Table 14.1: Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Limit Value

(µg/m3)

Averaging Period Frequency of Exceedence

Nitrogen dioxide 200 1-hour

18 times per year (99.8th %ile)

40 Annual -

Sulphur Dioxide

266 15 minutes 35 times per year (99.9

th %ile)

350 1 hour 24 times per year

(99.73rd

%ile)

125 24 hours 3 times per year

(99.18th %ile)

Particulate Matter (PM10)

50 24 hours 35 times per year

(90th %ile)

40 Annual -

Carbon monoxide 10,000 8 hours running -

Hydrogen chloride 800 Annual -

20 1 hour -

Lead 0.25 Annual -

Benzene 5 Annual -

1,3-butadiene 2.25 Annual -

Table 14.2: Environmental Assessment Levels for Metals (µg/m3)

Pollutant Long Term EAL Short Term EAL

Arsenic 0.003 15

Antimony 5 150

Cadmium 0.005 1.5

Chromium (II & III) 5 150

Chromium (VI) 0.0002 3

Cobalt 0.2 6

Copper 10 200

Lead 0.25 -

Manganese 1 1500

Mercury 0.25 7.5

Nickel 0.02 30

Thallium 1 30

Vanadium 5 1


4

14.4 Methodology

14.4.1 Clarification in relation to the methodology can be provided as follows.

14.4.2. The January 2011 ES makes it clear that “the precise details of the plant specification and

siting of the flues is not known” and that the intent was to demonstrate that an energy centre

could be operated without any likelihood of significant effects. The assumption was that the

flues would be 3m above the roof of Plot Orion, in accordance with the 3rd Chimney Height

Memorandum. The ES is not meant to represent an application to LBL for approval of the

chimney height under the Clean Air Act, and given the caveats set out in the ES it would be a

meaningless exercise. The buildings and structures included in the assessment were those

structures above 30 metres, at maximum build-out height as specified in the January 2011

Parameter Plans (see Section 14.6 of this Addendum).

14.4.3 The SELCHP plant is regulated by the Environment Agency, and is required to comply with

the emissions limits established in the Waste Incineration Directive (WID). An expanded

assessment taking into account all relevant buildings, five years of meteorological data, and

all of the pollutants specified in the WID is provided in Section 14.6 of this Addendum.

14.5 Baseline Conditions

14.5.1 There have been no changes to the baseline conditions as set out in the January 2011 ES.


Road traffic effects – existing and new receptors

14.6.1 Since the submission of the ES in January 2011, there have been a number of changes to the

Proposed Development as set out in Chapter 2 of this Addendum. The changes to the

Parameter Plans do not significantly affect the distances of the buildings from the existing

main roads, or the building heights (it is noted that Senegal Way 2 has increased by 2.1m),

which are the critical considerations for the air quality assessment. The reduced quantum of

floorspace will serve to reduce the volume of Scheme-related traffic, as discussed in Chapter

12 of this Addendum; the changes to the Scheme-related traffic assumptions are minor. The

air quality assessment that was carried out for the ES in January 2011 was based on higher

traffic flows than will now occur, and so represents a worst-case assessment. There is no

change in relation to the significance of the effects associated with road traffic in the January

2011 ES.


5

SELCHP and Proposed Energy Centre

14.6.2 A detailed assessment of whether the new buildings within the Proposed Development could

affect the dispersion of the plume from the South East London Combined Heat and Power

(SELCHP) facility has been carried out. In addition, the potential effect of all the pollutant

emissions specified in the Waste Incineration Directive (WID) arising from the SELCHP facility

have been considered at the new buildings within the Proposed Development itself.

14.6.3 The approach to the assessment, including the selection of appropriate sensitive receptor

locations was agreed with LBL (see Technical Appendix 14.2).

14.6.4 Predictions have been carried out using the ADMS-4.2 dispersion model. ADMS-4 is a new

generation model that incorporates a state-of-the art understanding of the dispersion

processes within the atmospheric boundary layer.

14.6.5 The model was run using 5 years (2006-2010) of sequential hourly meteorological data from

London Heathrow. The meteorological data were sourced from ADM Ltd. The wind roses for

each year are shown in Figure 14.1. A surface roughness length of 1 m was assumed, typical

of an urban area environment.

2006 2007


6

Fig 14.1: Wind roses for London Heathrow (2006 – 2010)

Buildings

14.6.6 The presence of tall buildings in the vicinity of a stack can affect the dispersion of the

emissions. Wind blowing around buildings distorts the flow and creates zones of turbulence

which can entrain the plume and cause greater mixing. In addition, the turbulence can

depress the rise and trajectory of the plume (a process commonly described as “building

downwash”) potentially leading to higher ground-level pollutant concentrations than would

occur without the building.

2008 2009

2010


7

14.6.7 The assessment has been carried out for two scenarios, “Without Scheme” and “With

Scheme”. For the “Without Scheme” scenario, only the existing SELCHP refuse silo and

boiler hall buildings were included in the model. It was agreed with LBL (see Technical

Appendix 14.2) that there are no other existing tall buildings in the vicinity of SELCHP that

need to be accounted for. For the “With Scheme” scenario, additional buildings within the

Proposed Development, as amended, were included (at the assumed maximum build-out

heights specified in the revised Parameter Plans).

14.6.8 The ADMS model can include a maximum of 25 individual buildings. It is generally accepted

that building downwash effects are only likely to occur where the stack height is less than 2.5

times the building height, and the building is within 5 stack heights distance. The SELCHP

stack is 100 m high; this equates to potential downwash effects associated with buildings that

are above 40 m height, and that are within 500 m of the stack base. As a conservative

approach, all buildings above 30 m height within the Proposed Development were included.

The locations of the buildings included in the assessment are shown in Figure 14.2 (NB:

Figure 14.2 is based on the January 2011 Parameter Plans, but this has no material effect on

the assessment as the maximum build-out heights of those structures above 30 meters are

unchanged within the revised Parameter Plans, with the exception of Senegal 2 which has

increased by 2.1m to a maximum height of 43.40m AOD but this is not material to the

assessment.


8

Figure 14.2: Buildings Included in the Model are Shaded in Green. Red Dots Represent the Stacks Included in the Model.

© Crown copyright 2011. All rights reserved. License number: 100046099

Model Input Parameters

14.6.9 The model requires a variety of input data to be provided, characterising the conditions of

release (stack height, exit temperature and velocity etc) and the emission rates (g/sec) for

each pollutant. The required input data for SELCHP were derived from the IPPC application

(2), a copy of which was provided by the Environment Agency. It was assumed that the two

MSW lines were running continuously, representing a worst case. The input data are

summarised in Tables 14.3 and 14.4.


9

Table 14.3: ADMS-4 Input Parameters – SELCHP

Temperature (°C)

Exhaust gas Exit Velocity

(m/s)

Stack diameter (m)

Stack Height (m)

160 19.1 2.97 100

Table 14.4: Emission Rates - SELCHP

Pollutant Emission Rate

Nitrogen oxides (as NO2) 16.309 g/s

Sulphur dioxide 4.077 g/s

Carbon monoxide 4.077 g/s

Particulate Matter (PM10) 0.815 g/s

Hydrogen Chloride 0.815 g/s

Hydrogen Fluoride 0.081 g/s

VOCs 0.815 g/s

Mercury 4.08 mg/s

Cadmium and Thallium 4.08 mg/s

Other Metalsb

0.041 g/s

Dioxins and Furans 8.15 ng/s a

Emission concentrations are for dry flue gas, 11% oxygen. Emission rates are corrected to the

actual flue gas conditions. b “Other Metals” are Antimony, Arsenic, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Lead, Manganese, Nickel,

Vanadium

14.6.10 For the “With Scheme” scenario, emissions from the Proposed Energy Centre were also

considered, so as to take account of potential cumulative effects. The input parameters for

the Energy Centre were derived, and are unchanged from, those set out in the January 2011

ES; the assessment was based on the worst-case assumption of continuous, full load

operation. It can be seen from Table 14.5 that this will have overestimated the potential

effects by a factor of about 2.5.

Table 14.5: ADMS-4 Input Parameters – Energy Centre

Weighted Temp (˚C)

a

Weighted Volume (Nm/s

3)a

Weighted Diam (m)

a

Stack Height

(m)

NOx Emission rate (g/sec)

Continuous Full Load

Operational Load

311 5.86 1.12 70.7 1.40 0.55

a Values have been weighted using the proportional volumes from each stack for the temperature,

volume and diameter.


10

14.6.11 The Air Quality Modelling and Assessment Unit (AQMAU) of the Environment Agency

recommends that a worst-case scenario be adopted, assuming a 70% NOx:NO2 conversion

for long term (annual mean) concentrations and a 35% conversion for short term (e.g. 1-hour

mean) concentrations. Given the short distance between the flues and the receptors, this is

likely to represent a very conservative assumption.

14.6.12 In the case of sulphur dioxide, the averaging period for one of the objectives is 15 minutes.

Defra Technical Guidance LAQM.TG (09) states that „normally predictions of 15-minute mean

concentrations should not be solely relied upon. Therefore, the 99.9th percentile of hourly

means can be multiplied by 1.34 to derive the 99.9th percentile 15-minute mean.... Where a

stack is very tall (>75m) a factor of two should be considered. Where a model provides the

predicted 99.9th percentile of 15-minute means this should be compared against that derived

by factoring the 99.9th percentile hourly mean and higher value should generally be used.‟

The stack height for SELCHP is 100 m and therefore a factor of two has been used to adjust

the 1-hour mean values. ADMS-4 can also be used to directly predict the 15-minute mean

values; the higher of the two predicted values has been reported.

14.6.13 For cadmium and thallium, a combined emission rate is provided and it has been assumed

that the emission rate for each metal is at the maximum. This is very much a worst case

assumption since, in reality, the combined emission will include a fraction of each of the two

metals and the plant will not continuously emit cadmium and thallium compounds at the limit

level.

14.6.14 For the assessment of the “other metals”, a similar assumption has been made such that the

combined emission represents a single metal species. This will again significantly

overestimate the potential effects.

Potential Effect of Proposed Scheme Buildings on SELCHP Plume

Receptor Locations

14.6.15 Pollutant concentrations have been predicted at a number of specific receptor locations (see

Figure 14.3) and for a grid of receptors (50m resolution within 500m of SELCHP stack, and

100m resolution out to 1.5 km) (see Figure 14.4). Consideration has been given to predictions

at different heights within the specific receptors, up to and including the estimated roof level

as detailed below:

Somerfield St (6 storeys = 18m height)

Island Rd/Oldfield St (6 storeys = 18m height)

Eddystone Tower, Oxestalls St (25 storeys = 75m height)

Millard Rd (20 storeys = 60m height)

Rotherhythe New Road (17 storeys = 51m height)


11

14.6.16 The receptor grid was modelled at ground-floor level (1.5 m height). Only winds within the

180-315° sector were considered for this assessment; it is only winds arising from this

direction that could potentially be affected by downwash associated with the buildings within

the Proposed Development.

Figure 14.3: Receptor Locations – Specific Locations (SELCHP- pink star, Proposed Energy Centre – blue star)



12

Figure 14.4: Gridded Receptor Locations – (SELCHP- pink star, Proposed Energy Centre – blue star)


Potential Effect of SELCHP Plume and Energy Centre on Proposed Development

Receptor Locations

14.6.17 The model was also run to predict concentrations at 24 receptor locations within the Proposed

Development, as amended (see Fig 14.5). Figure 14.5 is based on the January 2011

Parameter Plans, but this has no material effect on the assessment as the maximum build-out

heights are unchanged within the revised Parameter Plans, with the exception of Senegal 2

which has increased by 2.1m to a maximum of 43.40 AOD but this is not material to this

assessment. Where appropriate, consideration was given to receptors at different heights


13

within the buildings, in particular taking account of roof areas which provide residential

communal amenity space. The model was run for all wind sectors.

Figure 14.5: Receptor Locations Within Proposed Development


Results – Existing Receptor Locations

14.6.18 The results of the modelling study for the existing receptor locations are summarised in Table

14.6. The predicted concentrations are presented for both the “Without Scheme” and “With

Scheme” scenarios. In each case, the maximum predicted concentration at any receptor

location (both gridded and specific) is shown for the meteorological year that generated the

highest value. The location, receptor height and meteorological year that generated the

maximum predicted concentration for each metric (e.g. annual mean, 99.8th percentile of 1-

hour means etc) is described in Table 14.7.

14.6.19 It can be seen from Table 14.6 that (with the exception of nitrogen dioxide) the maximum

predicted concentrations for the “With Scheme” scenario are unchanged from those predict


14

for the Without Scheme scenario. It is concluded that the new buildings within the Proposed

Development, as amended, would have no significant downwash effect on the SELCHP

plume, and no further assessment is required.

Table 14.6: Predicted Maximum Concentrations at Existing Receptors (µg/m3 unless

stated)

Pollutant Averaging

Period

“Without Scheme” “With Scheme”

Max. Conc. Max as %

of Standard

Max. Conc. Max as % of

Standard

Nitrogen dioxide

Annual Mean 1.12 2.8 1.34 3.3

99.8th

%ile of hourly means

6.43 3.2 7.22 3.6

Sulphur dioxide

99.9th

%ile of 15 minute means

9.74 3.7 9.74 3.7

99.73rd


4.54 1.3 4.54 1.3

99.18th

%ile of daily means

2.57 2.1 2.57 2.1

Particulate matter (PM10)

Annual mean 0.08 0.2 0.08 0.2 90

th %ile of

daily means 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5

Carbon monoxide

Highest 8-hour running mean

0.40 <0.1 0.40 <0.1

Hydrogen chloride

Annual mean 0.08 0.4 0.08 0.4

Hourly mean 1.08 0.1 1.08 0.1

Hydrogen fluoride

Hourly mean 0.11 <0.1 0.11 <0.1

VOCs Annual mean 0.08 n/a 0.08 n/a

Mercury Annual mean 0.0004 0.2 0.0004 0.2

Hourly mean 0.01 0.1 0.01 0.1

Cd & Tl Annual mean 0.0004 8.0 0.0004 8.0

Hourly mean 0.01 0.4 0.01 0.4

Other metals Annual mean

0.004 2.0

0.004 2.0

Hourly mean 0.05 5.4 0.05 5.4

Dioxins Annual mean <0.8fg/m3 n/a <0.8fg/m

3 n/a

14.6.20 The predicted increase in nitrogen dioxide concentrations “With Scheme” is associated with

emissions from the proposed Energy Centre. The maximum predicted annual mean nitrogen

dioxide concentration for the “With Scheme” scenario is 1.34 µg/m3: this occurs at the upper

floor (73.5m height) of Eddystone Tower on Oxestalls Street. The results of the detailed

dispersion modelling study that was carried out for the January 2011 ES indicates that annual

mean ground-level nitrogen dioxide concentrations are predicted to be less than about 25


15

µg/m3 at the worst-case locations, adjacent to major roads, in the earliest opening year of the

Proposed Development. Concentrations at the top of tall buildings will be much lower, and

are expected to be at the general urban background (less than 22 µg/m3). Even if the

combined process contributions from SELCHP and the proposed Energy Centre were added

to the background, concentrations would remain well below the objective. The predicted

annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations are judged to be insignificant.

14.6.21 The predicted maximum 99.8th percentile of 1-hour mean concentrations is below the

screening criteria recommended by the Environment Agency, and the effects are judged to be

insignificant.

Table 14.7: Details of Maximum Predicted Concentrations for Different Metrics at Existing Receptors

Averaging Period

Without Scheme With Scheme

Grid Ref Height (m) Met. Year Grid Ref Height (m) Met. Year

Annual Mean 536458.88, 178482.41

73.5 2008 536458.88, 178482.41

73.5 2008

99.8th


535605.5, 178769.0

49.5 2008 536302.5, 177930.5

1.5 2009

99.9th

%ile of 15 minute means

536302.5, 177930.5

1.5 2009 536302.5, 177930.5

1.5 2009

99.73rd


535605.5, 178769.0

49.5 2008 535605.5, 178769.0

49.5 2008

99.18th

%ile of daily means

535605.5, 178769.0

49.5 2006 535605.5, 178769.0

49.5 2006

90th

%ile of daily means

536458.88, 178482.41

73.5 2008 536458.88, 178482.41

73.5 2008


536458.88, 178482.41

73.5 2008 536458.88, 178482.41

73.5 2008

Hourly mean 536227.5, 177955.5

1.5 2007 536227.5, 177955.5

1.5 2007

Results – Receptor Locations Within the Proposed Development

14.6.22 The results of the modelling study for the new receptor locations within the Proposed

Development, as amended, are summarised in Table 14.8. In each case, the maximum

predicted concentration at any receptor location is shown for the meteorological year that

generated the highest value. The location, receptor height and meteorological year that


16

generated the maximum predicted concentration for each metric (e.g. annual mean, 99.8th

percentile of 1-hour means etc.) is described in Table 14.9.

Table 14.8: Predicted Maximum Concentrations at Receptors Within the Proposed Development (µg/m

3 unless stated)

Pollutant Averaging Period

“With Scheme”

Max. Conc. Max as % of

Standard

Nitrogen dioxide

Annual Mean 7.7 19.3

99.8th %ile of hourly means 101.6 50.8

Sulphur dioxide

99.9th %ile of 15 minute means

24.6 9.2

99.73rd %ile of hourly means

9.6 2.7

99.18th %ile of daily means 4.2 3.3

Particulate matter (PM10)

Annual mean 0.04 0.1

90th %ile of daily means 0.13 0.3

Carbon monoxide


0.21 <0.1

Hydrogen chloride

Annual mean 0.04 0.2

Hourly mean 3.06 0.4

Hydrogen fluoride


VOCs Annual mean 0.04 1.8a

Mercury Annual mean 0.0002 0.1


Cd & Tl Annual mean 0.0002 4.1


Other metals Annual mean 0.002 1.0


Dioxins Annual mean <0.4 fg/m3 n/a

a Calculated on the basis that all VOC emissions are as 1,3-butadiene


17

Table 14.9: Details of Maximum Predicted Concentrations For Different Metrics at Receptors Within the Proposed Development

Averaging Period

With Scheme

Receptor Location Height Met. Year

Annual Mean 17 535516.56, 177936.05

71.29 2010

99.8th %ile of hourly means

15 535474.0, 178010.0

74.3 2006

99.9th %ile of 15 minute means

15 535474.0, 178010.0

74.3 2008

99.73rd %ile of hourly means

21 535421.94, 177999.55

74.17 2009

99.18th %ile of daily means

15 535474.0, 178010.0

74.3 2009

90th %ile of daily means

15 535474.0, 178010.0

74.3 2008


15 535474.0, 178010.0

74.3 2008

Hourly mean 15 535474.0, 178010.0

74.3 2008

14.6.23 The maximum predicted annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentration is 7.7 µg/m3: this occurs

at 71.3 m height at Excelsior 3. This exceeds the Environment Agency‟s screening criterion

(1% of the annual mean objective, or 0.4 µg/m3). The results of the detailed dispersion

modelling study that was carried out for the January 2011 ES indicate that annual mean

ground-level nitrogen dioxide concentrations are predicted to be less than about 25 µg/m3 at

the worst-case locations, adjacent to major roads, in the earliest opening year of the

Proposed Development. Concentrations at the top of tall buildings will be much lower, and

are expected to be at the general urban background (less than 22 µg/m3). Even if the

combined process contributions from SELCHP and the proposed Energy Centre were added

to the background, concentrations would remain well below the objective. The predicted

annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations are judged to be insignificant.

14.6.24 The maximum predicted 99.8th percentile of 1-hour mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations is

101.6 µg/m3 which occurs at 74.3m height at Stockholm 2. This exceeds the Environment

Agency‟s screening criterion (10% of the 1-hour mean objective, i.e. 20 µg/m3). It is not

appropriate to add the predicted 99.8th percentile from a process to the 99.8

th percentile

background as they will not occur at the same time. The approach recommended in


18

LAQM.TG(09) has therefore been used, using the assumptions as described in the January

2011 ES. The predicted 99.8th percentile of 1-hour mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations at

the worst-case receptor is 184.4 µg/m3. This is below the objective and is based on the

assumption of full load, continuous operation of the proposed Energy Centre which will have

substantially overestimated the predicted concentrations. It is concluded that the effects are

insignificant.

14.6.25 For VOCs, the highest predicted annual mean concentration is 0.04 µg/m3. If this is assumed

to be all as 1,3-butadiene, it would represent only 1.8% of the environmental standard. In

reality, only a small fraction of the VOCs emitted from SELCHP will be as 1,3-butadiene. In

addition, the predicted concentration at any receptor within the Proposed Development is

lower than for any existing receptor (see Table 14.4). It is concluded that any effects are

insignificant.

14.6.26 For cadmium and thallium combined, the highest predicted annual mean concentration is

0.0002 µg/m3. If this is assumed to be all as cadmium, it would represent only 4.1% of the

environmental standard. In reality, the SELCHP plant will not emit cadmium at the limit value.

In addition, the predicted concentration within any receptor at the Proposed Development is


insignificant.

14.6.27 For the other metals combined, the highest predicted annual mean concentration is 0.002

µg/m3. If this is assumed to be all as arsenic, it would represent 66% of the environmental

standard. In reality, the SELCHP plant will not emit arsenic at the limit value, and recent

guidance issued by the Environment Agency (3) suggests that in-stack arsenic concentrations

from municipal waste incineration plant are highly unlikely to exceed 0.033 mg/m3 (about

0.6% of the emission limit). If this factor is used to scale the emissions, the predicted

concentrations are below the screening criteria recommended by the Environment Agency. In

addition, the predicted concentration at any receptor within the Proposed Development is


insignificant.

14.6.28 Emissions of chromium VI need to be considered separately. The Environment Agency also

advise that no more than about 2% of chromium released from municipal waste incineration

plant will be as chromium VI. If it is assumed that SELCHP operated at its limit for the other

metals, but only released chromium, the maximum annual mean concentration of chromium

VI would be 0.00004 µg/m3 and the maximum hourly concentration would be 0.0003 µg/m

3.

These concentrations are well below the screening criteria recommended by the Environment

Agency and any effects would be insignificant.

key to areas assessed key to colours shown on images 2011/2.01-2.03... · key to areas assessed key...

Documents