peir main report vol25 deptford church street

8/3/2019 PEIR Main Report Vol25 Deptford Church Street

1/325


2/325


3/325


4/325


5/325


6/325


7/325


8/325


9/325


10/325


11/325


12/325


13/325


14/325


15/325


16/325


17/325


18/325


19/325


20/325


21/325


22/325


23/325


24/325


25/325


26/325


27/325


28/325


29/325


30/325


31/325


32/325


33/325


34/325


35/325


36/325


37/325


38/325


39/325


40/325


41/325


42/325


43/325


44/325


45/325


46/325


47/325


48/325


49/325


50/325


51/325


52/325


53/325


54/325


55/325


56/325


57/325


58/325


59/325


60/325


61/325


62/325


63/325


64/325


65/325


66/325


67/325


68/325


69/325


70/325


71/325


72/325


73/325


74/325


75/325


76/325


77/325


78/325


79/325


80/325


81/325


82/325


83/325


84/325


85/325


86/325


87/325


88/325


89/325


90/325


91/325


92/325


93/325


94/325


95/325


96/325


97/325


98/325


99/325


100/325


101/325


102/325


103/325


104/325


105/325


106/325


107/325


108/325


109/325


110/325


111/325


112/325

Volume 25: Deptford Church Street Section 8: Land quality

Page 94 Preliminary environmental informationreport

Vol 25 Table 8.5.1 Land quality impacts and magnitudes -construction

Impact Magnitude, and justification

Health impact on constructionworkers

Negligible - measures such as use ofcorrect PPE, safety briefings andremediation of contaminated soilsreduce impacts substantially.

Health impact on off-site receptors- workers and members of thepublic

Negligible - significantlycontaminated soils are unlikely to beencountered additionally measuresfor dust suppression, correct storageof potentially contaminated materials,wheel washing at site entrance willsubstantially reduce impacts in the

event of finding contamination.Damage to built environment existing structures

Negligible - measures such as UXOspecialists employed to advise staffreduce impacts substantially.

Damage to built environment proposed structures

Negligible - measures suchinvestigation for selection of concretemix reduce impacts.

Vol 25 Table 8.5.2 Land quality receptor values/sensitivities -construction

Receptor Value/sensitivity and justification

Construction workers High intensive below groundconstruction

Off-site receptors residents,workers and school children

High residential and schoolpremises close to site

Built environment - existing Low no on-site buildings

Built environment - proposed Low infrastructure

Vol 25 Table 8.5.3 Land quality significance of effects - construction

Effect Significance, and justification

Slight effect on construction workers Not significant

Slight effect on off-site receptors Not significant

Negligible effect on builtenvironment - existing

Not significant

Negligible effect on builtenvironment - proposed Not significant


113/325



8.6 Operational assessment8.6.1 Operational effects could include potential exposure to end users from

contaminated soils and for the leakage of sewage from the shaft into thesurrounding soils.

Impacts and effects on future site users8.6.2 The future site users include maintenance workers who will be working on

the site occasionally and members of the public who will be able to accessthe completed hardstanding above the shaft. These are low (eg,maintenance workers visiting the site occasionally and wearing personalprotection equipment) to high sensitivity receptors (eg, members of thepublic).

8.6.3 Following the design measures incorporated into the construction phase(investigation, soil and groundwater as necessary) as well as theplacement of newly built hardstanding there is not considered to be anyimpacts to the public from pre-existing contamination in the completeddevelopment.

8.6.4 There is some potential for maintenance personnel to be impacted byelevated ground gases. The completed shaft is designed to havesophisticated gas and odour control measures as part of the design due togassing source represented by the tunnel contents.

8.6.5 Shaft design (including secondary lining) would ensure that any outflowfrom the shaft is unlikely and that there is a negligible impact to theidentified receptors giving a negligible effect (not significant).

Impacts and effects upon built environment 8.6.6 The principal impact relates to the potential for the degradation of new

structures by attack from deleterious substances which may in turn reducethe integrity of the structure (and could promote leakage of sewagethrough the walls of the shaft).

8.6.7 The proposed built environment is a low sensitivity receptor and with theinclusion of the proposed measures such as suitable concrete mix designand soil remediation (as necessary), the impact of the effect is low giving anegligible effect overall (not significant).

8.6.8 In addition it is possible that elevated gases may be able to impactproposed above ground structures. These are however very limited andmeasures, such as site investigation, gas risk assessment and theincorporation of measures into building design (such as gas resistantmembranes if necessary), mean the magnitude of impact is negligible.This gives a negligible effect (not significant).

The operational impacts, receptors and effects relating to land quality areshown in the tables below.


114/325



Vol 25 Table 8.6.1 Land quality impacts and magnitudes - operation

Impact Magnitude, and justification

Health impacts to site end users Negligible provision of shaftconstruction negates risk to endusers from foreshore area.Ventilation of shaft to ensure no gasbuild-up form sewage prevents risksto construction personnel from in-ground gases.

Damage to built environment proposed structures

Negligible - measures such asincorporation of gas membranes inbuildings and suitable concrete mixdesign reduce impacts

Damage to built environment existing structures

Negligible no existing structures.

Vol 25 Table 8.6.2 Land quality receptor values/sensitivities -operation


Site end users Industrial/infrastructure end usemay be considered as lowsensitivity.

However, present plans allowmembers of the public to be able toaccess the area of completed aboveground works - the latter may beconsidered as high sensitivityreceptors.

Built environment existing Low no existing structures

Built environment - proposed Low industrial/infrastructure

Vol 25 Table 8.6.3 Land quality significance of effects - operation

Effect Significance, and justification

Negligible to slight effect on endusers

Not significant


Not significant

Negligible effect on builtenvironment proposed

Not significant


115/325



8.7 Approach to mitigationConstruction

8.7.1 The assessment has not identified the need for further site specificmitigation measures during the construction phase.

Operation

8.7.2 The assessment has not identified the need for further site specificmitigation measures during the operational phase.


116/325


Page 98 Preliminary environmental information report

8.8 Assessment summary8.8.1 The tables below summarise the residual significant effects for construction and operation.

Vol 25 Table 8.8.1 Land quality Assessment summary - construction

Receptor Description of effect Significance of effect Mitigation Significance ofresidual effect

Construction workers Slight effect onconstruction workers

Not significant Not required No residual effectsidentified

Off-site receptors residents and workers

Slight effect on off-sitereceptors


Built environment -existing



Built environment -proposed

Negligible effect on builtenvironment - proposed


Vol 25 Table 8.8.2 Land quality Assessment summary - operation

Receptor Description of effect Significance of effect Mitigation Significance ofresidual effect

Site end users Negligible effect on endusers


Built environment existing



Built environment -proposed

Negligible effect on builtenvironment proposed



117/325



8.9 Assessment completion8.9.1 New data from site investigations (including new boreholes and foreshore

samplings) will be reviewed and the baseline updated as required.

8.9.2 Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertakenand reported in the ES.

8.9.3 Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches forland quality within the project will be finalised and reported in the ES.

8.9.4 Impacts on groundwater, surface water and aquatic ecology will beassessed and reported in the ES.


118/325

Volume 25: Deptford Church Street Section 9: Noise and vibration


9 Noise and vibration

9.1 Introduction9.1.1 This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the

likely significant noise and vibration effects at the Deptford Church Streetsite.

9.1.2 This section includes an assessment of the following:

a. noise and vibration from the construction site activities

b. noise from construction traffic on roads outside the site

c. noise and vibration from the operation of the site.

9.1.3 The tunnel drive for the main tunnel does not run beneath this location;however the drive for the Greenwich connection tunnel does. Noise andvibration from the tunnelling activities associated with the main tunnel and

connection tunnel are considered in (Volume 6).9.2 Proposed development9.2.1 The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The

elements of the proposed development relevant to noise and vibration areas follows.

Construction9.2.2 Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to reduce noise and vibration

impacts include:

a. careful selection of construction plant (conforming to the relevant SI),construction methods and programming

b. equipment to be suitably sited so as to minimise noise impact onsensitive receptors

c. use of site enclosures, and temporary stockpiles, where practicableand necessary, to provide acoustic screening

d. choice of routes and programming for the transportation ofconstruction materials, excavated material and personnel to and fromthe site

e. careful programming so that activities which may generate significantnoise are planned with regard to local occupants and sensitivereceptors.

9.2.3 It has been assumed for the purposes of this assessment that thehoarding height would be 2.4m at this location.

9.2.4 Where the need for additional noise control measures (beyond standardbest practicable means measures described in the CoCP) has beenidentified, these have not been assumed for the purposes of theassessment. Where that the assessment indicates that these are likely tobe required, this information has been added to the section on mitigation.

9.2.5 For the purposes of the noise and vibration assessment the constructionactivities have been grouped into the following stages of work:


119/325



a. enabling works (including demolition)

b. shaft sinking by diaphragm wall

c. interception and CSO works (including pile driving)

d. completion work (including landscaping, and construction and fit-out ofpermanent facility).

9.2.6 The above ground works (stages a, b and d) have the potential to createairborne noise impacts.

9.2.7 Some noise will be generated for activities during stage c, most notablythe driving of the sheet piles which will form the interception and valvechamber walls. It is anticipated that it would only take a few days to drivein the sheet piles although the type of piling rig is still to be confirmed.This has not been quantitatively assessed as it is considered no significanteffects would arise from these activities owing to the distance to theclosest receptors and the assumed short durations of the works involved.The vibration levels have been assessed from the point of view of buildingdamage.

9.2.8 Stages b, c and d have the potential to generate groundborne noise andvibration impacts, through vibratory compaction and driven sheet piling.Diaphragm walling by hydrofraise attachment is also proposed at thislocation . This is considered to be low vibration methods and as such hasnot been quantitatively assessed, as it is considered that no significanteffects would arise from this activity.

9.2.9 Plant schedules for stages c and d (interception and completion work) arenot available at this stage of the design so these have not been assessedat this stage.

9.2.10 Construction road traffic would use the main strategic road network (A2)and Deptford Church Street via Crossfield Street and Coffey Street.Estimated vehicle movement numbers are presented in Section 3.3.

9.2.11 The majority of the activities would be carried out during standard (core)hours as identified in Vol 25 Table 3.3.1. As such, only daytime working isconsidered at this location. The exception to this is the requirement forextended hours working which has been proposed for major concretepours, such as for the diaphragm walling. This has not been quantitativelyassessed as it is assumed no significant effects would arise from theseactivities owing to the short durations involved.

Operation9.2.12 The permanent installation would have above ground structures housing

ventilation equipment and electrical and control equipment. This plantequipment would be required to operate under various scenariosdependent on the flows into and along the tunnel, with the potential tooperate at any time of the day or night. The plant installed and thecascade events have the potential to create noise and vibration impacts.


120/325



9.3 Assessment methodology

Scoping and engagement9.3.1 Scoping and technical engagement comments are presented in Volume 4.

9.3.2 There were no site specific comments from consultees of relevance tonoise and vibration for this particular site.

Baseline9.3.3 The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology provided in

Volume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.

Construction9.3.4 The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard

methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations aredescribed below.

9.3.5 At this location, the construction activities have been assessed over theperiod of four and a half years.

9.3.6 Baseline noise levels have not yet been measured, and as such theassessment has been carried out based on all residential recept ors beingin the most sensitive assessment category according to BS5228 37

9.3.7 For non-residential receptors, comparison has been made to the noiselevels reported from road traffic in the Defra London Noise Maps (2007)

.

38 .The level reported in these maps is based on an average over a longerperiod (7am to 11pm) than the standard (core) construction hours at this

location, which is likely to be lower than the measured noise level andtherefore worst case vi

Operation

. The noise level has been assumed to be thelowest value in the reported range (with a facade correction). The noiselevels reported in this document are indicative of the noise climate,however they are not intended to be used to indicate noise levels at aspecific receptor. These noise levels will be updated with the measureddata in the ES.

9.3.8 The operational phase assessment methodology follows the standardmethodology provided in Volume 5. There are no site specific variationsfor this site.

Assumptions and limitations9.3.9 Noise-related environmental design measures have been assumed as

defined in the CoCP. It has also been assumed that silent pilingtechniques will be employed at this site.

9.3.10 The assessment of noise from construction activities is not based on themeasured ambient noise levels, as baseline data is at present unavailable.A programme of baseline measurements is currently in progress and datawill be collected in line with the methodology in Volume 5. The ES will

vi See 9.2.11 for discussion of extened working hours


121/325



make use of this data to forecast the change in noise levels. Theassessment has been based on the worst case scenario for residences,where all residences fall into the most sensitive category.

9.3.11 The assessment has been carried out based on the assumption that thenoisiest two activities within any one stage could potentially occur onsitesimultaneously for the duration of the stage. This is an extremelyconservative approach, as the activities are unlikely to last the duration ofany one stage. At the current level of construction planning, this isconsidered a reasonable assumption and would be refined as theconstruction methodology develops.

9.3.12 The assessment of construction traffic effects has been based onpredicted numbers of construction traffic movements (presented in Section3), using professional judgement at this stage. This assessment will berevisited and presented in the ES upon receipt of baseline traffic data.

9.3.13 While it is considered that there is a possibility for noise and vibrationeffects arising from water cascading during tunnel filling events atreceptors very close to drop shafts, it has not been possible to adequatelyassess this as part of this report. The likely noise and vibration emissionshowever be estimated as the cascade design develops and will bereported in the ES.

9.4 Baseline conditions9.4.1 This section reviews the setting and receptor characteristics of the site for

the purposes of this assessment. The site is located adjacent to DeptfordChurch Street, within the LB of Lewisham. The site is bounded by

Deptford Church Street, Crossfield Street and Coffey Street. Beyondthese roads, there are residences to the east and west, a primary schoolto the west and commercial premises to the south. To the north is StPauls Church, whilst to the south beyond the elevated railway arecommunity facilities, residences adjacent to the railway viaduct andcouncil offices.

9.4.2 The nearest residences located east of the development are five storeyhigh rise residential flats at Congers House and Farrer House. Thenearest residences located to the west of the site are along Deptford HighStreet. The assessment for this area has been carried out based on thenoise levels to the rear of these properties on Deptford High Street, whichare exposed to lower noise levels, and therefore more likely to experiencenoise and vibration impacts.

9.4.3 The residential properties selected for the noise and vibration assessmentare identified in Vol 25 Table 9.4.1. These are shown in plan view in Vol25 Figure 9.4.1 and are selected to be representative of the range of noiseclimates where sensitive receptors are situated around the site. Theapproximate numbers of properties affected at each of these locations isalso indicated in Vol 25 Table 9.4.1. Beyond these receptors there areother residential locations which are screened from the site by interveningbuildings.


122/325



Vol 25 Figure 9.4.1 Noise and vibration residential receptors

(see Volume 25 Figures document)

9.4.4 Other non-residential noise sensitive receptors which have been assessedare St Josephs Primary School on Crossfield Street, and St Pauls Church

to the north of Coffey Street. These are also included in the table below.9.4.5 The noise climate around this area is dominated by road traffic noise from

the A2209 Deptford Church Road, and to a lesser extent from DeptfordHigh Street and other more distant roads. Frequent passenger trainmovements along the mainline railway to the south of the site will alsocontribute to the overall noise climate in this area.

Receptor sensitivity9.4.6 The noise sensitive receptors have been assessed according to their

sensitivity, using the methodology outlined in Volume 5 Section 2.8. The

sensitivities of all assessed receptors are presented in the table below.9.4.7 All residential receptors have been assessed as having a high sensitivity.

The only non-residential receptors assessed at this location are the StJosephs Primary School and St Pauls Church which have been assigneda medium sensitivity.

Vol 25 Table 9.4.1 Noise and vibration receptor values/sensitivities

Ref Receptoraddresses

Building Use Sensitivity No. ofnoise

sensitiveproperties/

areas

DC1 134-162 DeptfordHigh Street

Residential High 29

DC2 1-22 DeptfordChurch Street

Residential High 22

DC3 1-40 CongersHouse

Residential High 40

DC4 St Pauls Church Place ofWorship

Medium 1

DC5 St JosephsPrimary School

School Medium 1

9.4.8 The criteria for determining the significance of noise effects uponresidences from construction sources are dependent upon the existingambient noise levels. As measured ambient noise levels are not currentlyavailable, the lowest assessment category has been assumed for allresidential receptors. The assessment noise threshold levels for theresidential receptors near Deptford Church Street are as shown in thetable below. As described in the assessment methodology, this followsthe ABC method for determining construction noise significance definedin BS5228:2009.


123/325



Vol 25 Table 9.4.2 Noise sensitive receptor airborne constructionnoise

Ref Noise sensitivereceptor

Ambientnoise level,

rounded tonearest5dBL Aeq **

Assessmentcategory *

Significancecriterion

thresholdlevel *,dBL Aeq, 10hour


- A 65

DC2 1-22 DeptfordChurch Street

- A 65

DC3 1-40 CongersHouse

- A 65

DC4 St Pauls Church - N/A***

N/A***

DC5 St Josephs Primary

School- N/A*** N/A***

* From ABC method BS5228:2009

** Baseline measurement data not available for this report

*** ABC method BS5228:2009 does not apply directly to non-residential receptors

9.5 Construction assessment

Construction base and development cases

9.5.1 The noise level for the base case assessment is expected to be asassumed for the baseline noise levels for 2011.

9.5.2 The noise level for the development case assessment is expected to be asper 2011 noise levels. Where there is a variation in the conditions duringthe first year of construction, it is likely that the noise levels would increasevery slightly compared to the measured data from 2011 (due to naturaltraffic growth and the potential for additional construction noise fromadjacent developments), and as such, an assessment based on data from2011 would be worst case. It is not considered that there are any othercircumstances at this location that would cause the baseline noise levels

at the receptor locations to change significantly between 2011 and the firstyear of construction.

9.5.3 For vibration, it is considered that the levels of vibration around the site arelow at present, and they are unlikely to change between the present timeand the future base case.

9.5.4 The development case is therefore assumed to be the base caseplus anyadditional noise and vibration sources associated with the constructionphase.

Construction effects

9.5.5 Predictions of construction noise have been carried out based oninformation available to date and presented in Section 3. Noise measures


124/325



incorporated in the CoCP have been assumed for the purposes of theassessment.

Construction noise

9.5.6 The results of the assessment of construction noise are presented in Vol

25 Table 9.5.1 to Vol 25 Table 9.5.5. 134-162 Deptford High Street

9.5.7 The properties at 134-162 Deptford High Street are a mixture of two andthree storey town houses. Although the upper floors do not directlyoverlook the site, they will receive no screening from the site hoardings,which is reflected in the higher noise levels predicted, compared to groundfloor level. Based on the BS5228 impact criterion threshold, no excessesabove the threshold are predicted to occur at ground level. At third floorlevel, the impact threshold criterion is exceeded during the shaft sinkingworks, and as such a significant impact is identified here.

9.5.8 The impact at these 32 properties is caused by an excess of 3dB abovethe BS5228 criterion for twelve months from the shaft sinking works.

Vol 25 Table 9.5.1 Noise construction impacts DC1, 134-162 DeptfordHigh St

Receptor No. of noisesensitive

properties

Value/sensitivity

134-162 Deptford High Street 29 High

Activity ConstructionNoise*level,

dBL Aeq

Significancecriterionthreshold

level, dBL Aeq

Magnitude/justification

Excessabove

criterion,dBL Aeq

Approx.activity

duration,months

Ground Floor

Enabling Works 55 65 -10 2

Shaft Sinking 58 65 -7 12

Third Floor ** Enabling Works 65 65 0 2

Shaft Sinking 68 65 +3 12*Construction noise only

**Worst case floors assessed not necessarily the highest floor level.

1-22 Deptford Church Street

9.5.9 These properties are comprised of five storey apartments overlookingdirectly onto the A2209 road. Residences at ground and first floor level

are completely screened from site activities; however properties at the topof the building will not be screened from noise. Based on the BS5228


125/325



impact threshold criterion, a significant impact will arise on the highestfloor level during the enabling and shaft sinking operations.

Vol 25 Table 9.5.2 Noise construction impacts DC2, 1-22 DeptfordChurch Street


properties

Value/sensitivity

1-22 Deptford Church Street 22 High

Activity ConstructionNoiseLevel *,dBL Aeq


thresholdlevel, dBL Aeq


Excessabove

criterion,

dBL Aeq

Approx.activity

duration,

monthsGround Floor

Enabling Works 58 65 -7 2

Shaft Sinking 60 65 -5 12

Second Floor 2

Enabling Works 68 65 +3 2

Shaft Sinking 70 65 +5 12*Construction noise only

** Worst case floors assessed not necessarily the highest floor level.

1-40 Congers House

9.5.10 Congers House is a large five storey apartment block, with views to thenorth and south. It is believed that there are no habitable rooms thatdirectly look west onto the Deptford Church Street site. Even so, it ispredicted that the upper floor noise level will be considerably higher thanthose at ground level, as the site hoarding offers little effective screeningat these upper floor levels. Based on the BS5228 impact thresholdcriterion, there will be a significant impact at the upper floor levels duringthe enabling and shaft sinking works.


126/325



Vol 25 Table 9.5.3 Noise construction impacts DC3, 1-40 CongersHouse


properties

Value/sensitivity

1-40 Congers House 40 High

Activity ConstructionNoiseLevel *,dBL Aeq


thresholdlevel, dBL Aeq


Excessabove

criterion,dBL Aeq

Approx.activity

duration,months

Ground Floor

Enabling Works 60 65 -5 2Shaft Sinking 63 65 -2 12

Fourth Floor **

Enabling Works 70 65 +5 2

Shaft Sinking 73 65 +8 12*Construction noise level only

**Worst case floors assessed not necessarily the highest floor level.

St Pauls Church

9.5.11 It should be noted that the BS5228 ABC method does not apply directlyto non-residential receptors; hence impact has been evaluated based onthe absolute noise level and the predicted noise level relative to theassumed ambient noise. This has been based on the Defra London NoiseMaps, as outlined in Section 9.3.7.

9.5.12 Both of the activities assessed will generate noise levels above theexisting ambient noise climate. However the increase in noise level isunlikely to cause a disturbance from the construction works.

Vol 25 Table 9.5.4 Noise construction impacts DC4, St Pauls Church


properties

Value/sensitivity

St Pauls Church 1 Medium

Activity Construction Noise

Level*,dBL Aeq

AssumedAmbientbaselinedBL Aeq **

Magnitude/ justification

Ground Level

Enabling 61 55-60 3dB increase relative to


127/325




properties

Value/sensitivity

St Pauls Church 1 Medium


Level*,dBL Aeq



Works assumed average baselineambient noise level over 2months

Shaft Sinking 63 55-60 5dB increase relative toassumed average baselineambient noise levels over 12months

*Construction noise only

**From Defra London Noise Maps

St Josephs Primary School

9.5.13 The St Josephs Primary School is a two storey building. Whilst the sitehoardings will provide noise screening for the ground floor level, theimpact criterion is exceeded above ground floor level during the enablingand shaft sinking works. This is due to the absence of attenuation fromscreening on upper floors of the building and the proximity of the building

to the works. Therefore the impact is such that construction noise couldcause some disturbance at the school.

Vol 25 Table 9.5.5 Noise construction impacts DC5, St JosephsPrimary School


properties

Value/sensitivity

St Josephs Primary School 1 Medium


Level*,dBL Aeq



Ground Level

EnablingWorks

61 60 65 Construction noise does notexceed baseline ambient noiselevel over 2 months

Shaft Sinking 63 60 65 Construction noise does notexceed baseline ambient noiselevel over 12 months


128/325




properties

Value/sensitivity

St Josephs Primary School 1 Medium


Level*,dBL Aeq



Second Floor

EnablingWorks

71 60 65 8dB increase relative toassumed average baselineambient noise levels over 2months

Shaft Sinking 73 60 65 10dB increase relative toassumed average baselineambient noise levels over 12months

*Construction noise only

**From Defra London Noise Maps

Construction traffic

9.5.14 Baseline traffic data collection is ongoing and is thus not included in thisreport, and therefore it is not possible to calculate the change in noise

level that will arise at the identified receptor locations. A qualitativeassessment has therefore been undertaken to consider the likelihood of asignificant impact given current traffic levels.

9.5.15 It is considered unlikely that an impact would be created at propertiesalong the east side of Deptford Church Street, due to level of noisegenerated by the volume of traffic along this busy road. There are twoproposed site access/egress points, one on Coffey Street, the other alongCrossfield Street, where the ambient noise climate is quieter and thereforeimpacts at properties overlooking these roads are considered more likely.This will be assessed in greater detail in the ES once further information isavailable.

Construction vibration

9.5.16 The assessment of potential construction vibration impacts at adjacentbuildings / structures has been assessed using the predicted Peak ParticleVelocity (PPV), according to the criteria given in Volume 5. The results ofthe assessment of construction vibration are presented in the table below.


129/325



Vol 25 Table 9.5.6 Vibration impacts on buildings/structures -construction

Ref Receptor Impact(highest

predictedPPV acrossall activities,

mm/s)

Value/sensitivity

Magnitude andjustification


1.1 High No impact:Below thresholdfor potentialcosmeticdamage

DC2 1 - 22 Deptford

Church Street


DC3 1- 40 CongersHouse


DC4 St Pauls Church 1.5 Medium No impact:

Below thresholdfor potentialcosmeticdamage


1.5 Medium No impact:Below thresholdfor potentialcosmeticdamage

9.5.17 The vibration levels reported here are well below the levels likely to causebuilding damage according to the criteria described in Volume 5 Section 8.

9.5.18 The assessment of potential construction vibration impacts due to humanresponse at neighbouring receptors has been assessed using thepredicted estimated Vibration Dose Value (eVDV). The results from theassessment are presented in the table below.


130/325



Vol 25 Table 9.5.7 Vibration impacts human response -construction

Ref Receptor Impact(highest

predictedVDV acrossall activities,

m/s 1.75 ) *

Value/sensitivity

Magnitude andjustification**


0.05 High No impact:Below lowprobability ofadversecomment

DC2 1 - 22 Deptford

Church Street

0.08 High No impact:

Below lowprobability ofadversecomment


0.12 High No impact:Below lowprobability ofadversecomment

DC4 St Pauls Church 0.13 Medium No impact:

Below lowprobability ofadversecomment


0.13 Medium No impact:Below lowprobability ofadversecomment

*Worst affected floor

** Categorisation of magnitude as defined in Volume 5 Section 2

9.5.19 All of the predicted eVDV levels at each of the receptor locations fall belowthe Low Probability of Adverse Comment band, as described in Volume 5Section 8. Furthermore, these predicted levels are based upon the worstcase conditions that may arise during vibration intense activities within thesite compound.

Summary of construction effects

9.5.20 The table below outlines the assessed significance of effects from all

sources of noise and vibration based on the extent of impacts identifiedabove.


131/325



9.5.21 As described in the general methodology Volume 5 Section 8, thesignificance of noise effects is based on the predicted impact and otherfactors, ie the total noise level relative to the significance threshold, thenumbers and types of receptors affected and the duration of impact. Thesignificance of vibration effects is assessed on the magnitude of exposure

relative to guidance thresholds for disturbance as well as other factorsincluding the number of affected receptors and their uses.

Vol 25 Table 9.5.8 Noise and vibration summary of constructioneffects

Ref Receptor Significance, and justification

Noise Vibration


Significant Not significant

DC2 1 - 22 DeptfordChurch Street Significant Not significant



DC4 St Pauls Church Not significant Not significant



9.5.22 The assessment identifies significant noise effects at all receptors except

St Pauls Church.9.5.23 Based on the impacts assessed there are no significant effects predicted

for construction traffic.

9.6 Operational assessment

Operational base and development cases9.6.1 As discussed in para. 9.5.1, there is likely to be only a small variation in

baseline noise levels between 2011 and the future base case year. Thenoise levels assumed in 2011 are therefore likely to form the basis of aconservative assessment, as road traffic noise levels would increase alongwith traffic increases.

9.6.2 For vibration, no change is assumed between the present time and futurebase case.

Operational effects9.6.3 Noise control measures would be included on all plant items as part of the

design process to limit noise increases to within appropriate noise limits toavoid disturbance. These limits will help inform the ongoing design of theproject, will be relative to the existing background noise levels at eachreceptor using the methodology in BS4142 (1997) 39 and will be

established in negotiation with the local authority to ensure the limitsproposed are acceptable and achievable. Discussions with the local


132/325



authority are ongoing and will be presented in the ES. It is not possible toquantify the overall change in noise level until this process is complete.However, it is considered that it will be possible to control noise emissionsto within appropriate noise limits defined by the local authority to preventsignificant effects.

9.6.4 The table below contains a summary of the assessment results foroperational noise.

Vol 25 Table 9.6.1 Noise and vibration - airborne noise impactsoperation

Ref Receptor Impact Value/sensitivity

Magnitudeand

justification


Noise levelcontrolled to

preventadverseimpact as perBS4142

High Change inambient

subject to localauthority limits

no adverseimpact

DC2 1 - 22 DeptfordChurch Street

Noise levelcontrolled topreventadverseimpact as perBS4142

High Change inambientsubject to localauthority limits

no adverseimpact



High Change inambientsubject to localauthority limits

no adverseimpact

DC4 St Pauls Church Noise levelcontrolled topreventadverse

impact as perBS4142

Medium Change inambientsubject to localauthority limits

no adverseimpact



Medium Change inambientsubject to localauthority limits

no adverseimpact


133/325



9.6.5 As part of the operation of the tunnel, there would need to be routine butinfrequent maintenance carried out at the site. This is described further inSection 3.

9.6.6 A crane would be required for 10 yearly shaft inspections. This would be

carried out during normal working hours, using equipment which is likely toincrease ambient noise levels. Given the infrequency of this operation, itis considered that a significant noise effect would not occur.

9.6.7 Routine inspections, lasting approximately half a day, would occur everythree to six months and would not require heavy plant. As this would takeplace during the daytime with minimal noisy equipment operating overshort periods of time, it is considered that further assessment of noisegenerated by this activity is not required.

9.6.8 As no impacts have been identified from the operation of the site, no

significant effects have been identified.Vol 25 Table 9.6.2 Noise and vibration summary of operational

effects

Ref Receptor Significance, and justification

Noise fromsurface site

ventilation plant

Noise frommaintenanceoperations.

DC1 134-162 Deptford HighStreet

Not significant Not significant

DC2 1 - 22 Deptford ChurchStreet


DC3 1- 40 Congers House Not significant Not significant

DC4 St Pauls Church Not significant Not significant

DC5 St Josephs PrimarySchool


9.6.9 At this location, no significant effects are predicted at any of the receptors.This is subject to the equipment being specified with appropriate noisecontrol measures to ensure that the targets in BS4142 are met as outlinedin Volume 5, Section 2.

9.7 Approach to mitigation

Construction9.7.1 All measures incorporated in the draft CoCP of relevance to noise and

vibration are found in Section 9.2.

9.7.2 Significant noise effects as a result of construction have been identified atfour receptors, hence additional mitigation would be applied where

practicable and effective at these locations. The buildings affected are all


134/325



more than two stories high, and close to the site, and as such the standardsite hoarding only provides screening to the ground floor of the properties.

9.7.3 For all properties with significant noise effects, the hoarding height wouldneed to be extremely high to reduce the noise levels at these properties.It is likely that hoarding at a height to provide effective screening would notbe practicable.

9.7.4 All stages of works assessed as having the potential to give rise to likelysignificant effects (enabling works and shaft sinking) would requireadditional mitigation, if practicable, to supplement the best practicablemeans (BPM) environmental design measures assumed for all sites. Thequantitative assessment has assumed only general BPM measures, as faras it is possible to incorporate these in the noise prediction exercise.These include site boundary screening, careful selection of modernconstruction plant, and positioning of equipment.

9.7.5 To address significant effects, specific solutions will be developed asappropriate to provide additional mitigation targeted on those noisesources generating the highest noise levels at the relevant receptor. Forexample, within this more detailed mitigation design, the use of localisedscreens and customised enclosures around the item of plant or theprocess would be considered. For the purposes of this report and at thisstage of the design, site specific additional mitigation beyond BPMmeasures has not been identified in the assessment. However, when thepotential mitigation options for the illustrative scheme can be confirmed,this will be presented in the ES.

Operational9.7.6 No significant effects as a result of the operation of the site have been

identified; hence no additional permanent noise mitigation is required atthis location.

9.7.7 It should be noted that operational plant design for the ventilation of thetunnel would include environmental design measures to meet noise limitsagreed with the local authority to avoid significant effects.


135/325



9.8 Assessment summary

ConstructionVol 25 Table 9.8.1 Noise and vibration assessment summary - construction

Receptor Effect Significance Mitigation Residual significance

134-162DeptfordHigh Street

Noise Significant Mitigation to be presented in the ES Potentially significant (subjectto mitigation options)

Vibration Not significant None required Not significant1 - 22DeptfordChurchStreet


Vibration Not significant None required Not significant

1- 40CongersHouse



St PaulsChurch

Noise Not significant None required Not significant


StJosephsPrimarySchool




136/325



OperationVol 25 Table 9.8.2 Noise and vibration assessment summary - operation

Receptor Effect Significance Mitigation Residual significance

134-162DeptfordHigh Street



1 - 22

DeptfordChurchStreet



1- 40CongersHouse



St PaulsChurch



StJosephsPrimarySchool




137/325



9.9 Assessment completion9.9.1 The completion of the assessment to an appropriate level of detail is

subject to further information on baseline and construction ambient noiselevels and road traffic counts. Ambient noise levels will include the

consideration of the use of St. Pauls Church for choral and orchestralconcerts. When the transport analysis is complete this will be assessedand any effects identified in the ES.

9.9.2 The level of detail of this site assessment reflects the available informationon methods and programme. The next stage of the assessment work willbe more detailed in profiling the variation in construction noise levelsacross the programmes of work and the range of receptors at eachsurface site.

9.9.3 It has not been possible to adequately assess the potential for noise andvibration from water cascading down drop shafts during tunnel filling

events. The likely noise and vibration emission will be estimated as thecascade design develops and would be included in the ES.

9.9.4 As the construction methodology develops more indepth assessmentwork for the ES will allow more detailed mitigation design.

9.9.5 Following the development of more refined mitigation design as describedabove, it will be possible to carry out a more detailed assessment ofresidual effects. The effectiveness of more specific mitigation measureswill be fully assessed and reported in the ES.

9.9.6 Assessment of cumulative and in combination effects will be undertakenand reported in the ES.

9.9.7 Following completion of the assessment the mitigation approaches fornoise and vibration within the project will be finalised and reported in theES.


138/325

Volume 25: Deptford Church Street Section 10: Socio-economics


10 Socio-economics

10.1 Introduction10.1.1 This section presents the preliminary findings of the assessment of the

likely significant socio-economic effects at the Deptford Church Street site.

10.2 Proposed development10.2.1 The proposed development is described in Section 3 of this volume. The

elements of the proposed development relevant to socio-economics are asfollows.

Construction10.2.2 Measures incorporated into the draft CoCP to limit, and in some cases

eliminate, significant adverse air quality, noise, vibration, and visualimpacts could also reduce socio-economic impacts, particularly amenity

impacts.10.2.3 These topics are included in Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9

Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual.

10.2.4 The construction site area would lie within the Crossfield Street publicopen space and also take up some of the surrounding road space.

10.2.5 Both the construction related activities and traffic (including lorrymovements) could result in amenity effects being experienced by a rangeof sensitive receptors in proximity to the proposed activities.

Operation10.2.6 An above-ground structure on the operational site would remain within

Crossfield Street Open Space once construction work is complete. Asmall publicly accessible area of hard-standing to allow access formaintenance vehicles would also be created.

10.3 Assessment methodology

Scoping and engagement10.3.1 Volume 4 documents the scoping and technical engagement process

which has been undertaken. There are no site specific comments from

consultees for this particular site relating to socio-economics.Baseline

10.3.2 The baseline methodology follows the standard methodology provided inVolume 5. There are no site specific variations for this site.

Construction10.3.3 The construction phase assessment methodology follows the standard

methodology provided in Volume 5. Any site specific variations aredescribed below:


139/325



a. The assessment years used to consider the potential for socio-economic effects have covered the period from the establishment ofthe site and ending approximately four and a half years later.

Assumptions and limitations

10.3.4 The following assumptions and limitations apply to the socio-economicsfindings presented within this report:

a. That Crossfield Street Open Space is poorly used in comparison to theother open spaces in the immediate vicinity and that both the usagelevels and quality of the space as it is at the present time (observed tobe poor) are likely to remain the same under a construction base casescenario and also under the operational base case scenario.

10.3.5 Preliminary technical assessments of likely significant air quality, noiseand vibration, and visual effects, and associated design and mitigationmeasures, have been undertaken by each of those topic areas (seeSections 4, 9 and 11 respectively). The socio-economic assessment hasbeen informed by the preliminary findings of these topic assessments.

10.4 Baseline conditionsPublic open space (on-site) Crossfield Street Open Space

10.4.1 The construction works area boundary falls entirely within an area ofgrassed public open space, approximately 0.6ha in size in total, known asCrossfield Street Open Space. The open space is bounded by CoffeyStreet to the north, Deptford Church Street to the east, and CrossfieldStreet to the south and west.

10.4.2 Based on its size, Crossfield Street Open Space constitutes a pocketpark as defined in the London Plan 40 . The LB Lewisham Leisure andOpen Space Study 41

10.4.3 The open space is divided into two discrete portions by a high brick wallwhich cuts across the site from north to south. As such, although the openspace is technically a single site, the dividing wall means that the openspace is not able to function as a single unified space. Both sections areaccessible to the public and are planted with a number of semi-mature andmature trees.

(LOSS) identifies the space as being an area ofvisual amenity greenspace - areas that improve the visual appearance ofresidential or other areas. Although, the study assessed the open spaceas being of average quality (35%), it falls below the proposed qualitystandard for amenity greenspace set in the study (46%).

10.4.4 The open space could provide opportunities for both passive recreationand small-scale informal active recreation; however there are no visitoramenities, eg, benches or lighting and the area is not formally landscapedother than the planted trees. Both halves of the open space areoverlooked by small industrial units, which are themselves located withinor adjacent to the arches of the railway viaduct to the south.

10.4.5 The western section of the open space is bounded by a low perimeterfence; approximately half a metre high, separating the site from the


140/325



pedestrian walkway. The space is accessible at all times and does nothave restricted opening hours.

10.4.6 The eastern section of the open space is bounded by an approximately1.5m high ornamental palisade perimeter fence, separating the site fromthe pedestrian walkway and, beyond this to the east, Deptford ChurchStreet (A2209). The site is used for dog walking and as a dog exercisingarea. This sections proximity to the road means that it experiencesgreater exposure to traffic-related impacts such as noise and air pollution.The space is accessible at all times through a gate on Crossfield Street.

10.4.7 Surveys of the site have been undertaken and further field surveys toassess usage levels of the open space have been undertaken duringsummer 2011. The size, low quality and lack of facilities, and internaldivision of the open space are likely to limit the recreational value itprovides to the local community. Based on the relatively low quality of thespace and its exposure to traffic on Deptford Church Street on the eastern

side of the wall, it is assumed that usage of the space is relatively low.However, the space, particularly on the western side is likely to be used bySt Josephs school children before and after school in particular, and it isalso designated by the school as an emergency assembly area.

10.4.8 In considering the sensitivity of users that could be affected by thepotential closure of access to the Crossfield Street Open Space, theavailability of other open spaces is a critical factor. There are other openspaces in the immediate vicinity of the Crossfield Street Open Space tothe north and east. These are St. Pauls Churchyard within thechurchyard walls being technically a private area, but generally open to

the public), a fenced open space located between the church and DeptfordChurch Street, currently used by dog walkers and Sue Godfrey NaturePark/Ferranti Park. Sue Godfrey Nature Park/Ferranti Park functionsprimarily as a nature reserve but which also contains a seating andplayground area at its eastern end (see next sub-section for furtherinformation). These alternative open spaces are each of similar or slightlylarger size and, according to the LB of Lewisham Leisure and Open SpaceStudy (LOSS), are of better quality than the Crossfield Street Open Space.Their status as a churchyard and nature reserve, respectively, could in aworst case scenario restrict their usage for strictly comparable recreationalactivities that take place on the Crossfield Street Open Space. Taking the

availability of these adjacent open spaces and their function and qualityinto account, it is concluded that the sensitivity of users to the temporaryloss of access to the Crossfield Street Open Space is medium.

10.4.9 Vol 25 Figure 10.4.1 contains a baseline plan which indicates the featuresidentified above.

Vol 25 Figure 10.4.1 Socio-economic context

(see Volume 25 Figures document)


141/325



Public open space (adjacent) St Pauls Churchyard and the SueGodfrey Local Nature Reserve

10.4.10 St. Pauls Churchyard, to the north of the proposed construction site onCoffey Street, is approximately 0.9ha in size. The space is clearly dividedinto two portions by an approximately 2m high wall:

a. the churchyard itself forming the larger western portion

b. a grassed area, outside the walls forming the smaller the easternportion.

10.4.11 The churchyard contains formal gardens and areas for passive recreation,providing access to the church itself and acting as a thoroughfare betweenDeptford High Street and Deptford Chu rch Street. It was afforded a qualityrating of very good (66%) in the LOSS 42

10.4.12 Surveys did observe some light usage of the churchyard. Unlike theportions of the open spaces to the east of the wall, the churchyard issheltered by the high stone wall from the effects of traffic noise onDeptford Church Street. The church also provides an attractive featureand focal point for the churchyard and is likely to attract users. On thisbasis, it is assumed that the churchyard experiences moderate usagelevels by the local community.

. It is surrounded by mostly lowand medium height stone walls

10.4.13 The area of grass to the east of the Churchyard wall is slightly smallerthan the eastern half of the Crossfield Street Open Space to the southacross Coffey Street. It is also of a very similar quality and character tothe eastern portion of Crossfield Street Open Space, being located

adjacent to Deptford Church Street, fenced and informally planted with anumber of trees.

10.4.14 Like the Crossfield Street Open Space, it is assumed that usage of thisspace is relatively low due to its relatively low quality and its exposure totraffic on Deptford Church Street.

10.4.15 The Sue Godfrey Nature Park, to the east of the site across the A2209Deptford Church Street (dual-carriageway), is a 0.6ha area of semi-naturalgreenspace. The park is a former wasteland site which now supports arange of flora and fauna through the mixture of habitats it provides. Thefar eastern segment of the open space, abutting Creekside, is known asFerranti Park. This portion of the park was designed and constructed in2005, and contains a pavilion, seating areas and child play space and playground facilities.

10.4.16 The Council notes that the use of the park by people and dogs hasincreased recently owing to new residential development to the north ofthe site at Berthon Street 43 . Together with the open space surrounding St.Pauls Church (including on the north side of the church yard alongsideMary Ann Buildings), to the north of Creek Road/McMillan Street and thegrounds of the Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance situated tothe east this nature park provides a continuous green link between

Deptford High Street and Creekside. In terms of quality, the LOSS in 2010assessed it as good 44 .


142/325



10.4.17 In considering the sensitivity of users of these adjacent open spaces todisturbance by the proposed construction activities, the availability ofalternative open spaces is a critical factor. As indicated above, the openspaces are fairly considerable in size and both the churchyard and theSue Godfrey Local Nature Reserve contain areas (eg, Ferranti Park) that

are further away from the proposed construction site and/or are separatedfrom the construction site by high stone walls (in the case of thechurchyard). Both spaces are separated from the proposed site area byroads, with the A2209 being observed during reconnaissance surveys tobe heavily trafficked.

10.4.18 There are some limited alternative open spaces providing passive oractive recreation within 400m of these open spaces including areas to thenorth of St Pauls Church yard alongside Mary Ann Buildings), to the northof Creek Road/McMillan Street and to the east in Ferranti Park and alsothe grounds of the Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance,

although the latter are not technically classed as public open space.10.4.19 Taking these factors into account, it is concluded that the sensitivity of

users of the open spaces surrounding the proposed construction site tolikely significant adverse amenity-related effects is medium.


Residential

10.4.21 The closest dwellings to the site are those to the east across DeptfordChurch Street within Congers House and Farrer House. The buildings areboth five storeys in height containing local-authority built flats of similarstyle and age (estimated to be approximately 40 years old). CongersHouse overlooks Sue Godfrey Local Nature Reserve to the north andfaces Farrer House to the south. There is some semi-private amenityspace located between and at the western and eastern ends of thebuildings.

10.4.22 The proposed construction site boundary lies approximately 50m both tothe west of Congers House and Farrer House respectively. No propertieswithin Congers House directly overlook the site. Although some dwellingswithin Farrer House may have a direct line of sight to the proposed site, ina north westerly direction, most do not overlook it directly. There is somescreening provided by trees (when in leaf), fencing and the A2209roadway (dual-carriageway) between the site and the semi-private amenityspace adjacent to the buildings.

10.4.23 The wider area does not have a purely residential aesthetic, but ischaracterised by the mixture of residential buildings, community facilities,retail frontages (Deptford High Street) and employment sites that currentlyexist.

10.4.24 In terms of the potential sensitivity of the occupants of the dwellings in thearea, it is considered that overall, residents are likely to be vulnerable toamenity impacts arising from the construction process. This is due to thefact that residents cannot easily take steps to avoid in combinationamenity effects that may arise. Residents are likely to be less sensitive to


143/325



any noise disturbance during the day and more sensitive during theevening and at night-time, particularly during sleeping hours. Thesensitivity of residents to amenity impacts may be mediated by characterand mix of uses currently existing in the area. It is assessed that theresidents are likely to have a medium level of sensitivity to amenity

impacts that may arise as a result of the construction process.10.4.25 Vol 25 Figure 10.4.1 contains a baseline plan which indicates the features

identified above.

Community Facilities St. Josephs Primary School

10.4.26 St Josephs R.C Primary School is a Voluntary Aided School in theArchdiocese of Southwark. According to the Department for Educatio nthere were 234 pupils on roll in 2010, against a capacity of 288 places 45

10.4.27 The school is located to the south west of the proposed site and isseparated from the site by Crossfield Street, which at this end of the streetis a public footpath rather than a vehicle route. The school does notcontain any open green space within its premises, although there is yardspace used for outdoor activities.

.It caters for children aged 4-11, and there are no early-years/nurseryclasses at the school.

10.4.28 The capability of the pupils and employees of the school to cope withchanges in their amenity is considered limited due to the close proximity ofthe site to the school. Children are generally considered to be moresensitive to certain amenity related impacts, particularly with regard toeffects on their learning capabilitie s related to road traffic 46 and to effectson health arising from air pollution 47

10.4.29 The school yard space would be used during (term-time) on weekdays atbreaks and lunchtime (weather allowing), and less frequently duringteaching hours for outdoor curricular activities. There is a 2m wallbetween the school and the footpath which provides screening from thesite.

, in comparison to adults. It isconsidered that the main timeframe of the pupils and employees exposureto the construction impacts would be during their arrival at and departurefrom the school, since most activities occur indoors. A child drop off andpick up zone for use by vehicles is located northwest of the site at the

junction of Crossfield and Coffey Streets, although as Crossfield Street isclosed off, this vehicle zone is solely accessed via Coffey Street (fromDeptford Church Street).

10.4.30 Overall, based on these factors it is considered that pupils and employeesof the school have a medium level of sensitivity to impacts that wouldcause a loss of amenity.


Community Facilities St. Pauls Church

10.4.32 St Pauls Church, a Grade I listed structure, is an important local landmarksurrounded by mostly low and medium height stone walls. It is located


144/325



north of the proposed site within the churchyard, beyond Coffey Street andmasonry/stone high walling.

10.4.33 The church is likely used at varying times of the week, including regularlyas a place of worship (eg, for Sunday services), as well as for otheractivities (administrative activities, group activities, etc), services andceremonies at other times of the week.

10.4.34 Since 2004, the church has been a base for St Paul's Sinfonia chamberorchestra. The chamber orchestra is understood to have ended itsassociation with the church in June 2011. The church is also understoodto be used for recordings of both choral and orchestral music 48

10.4.35 Given the activities of the church and its location in relationship to theproposed construction site, it is considered that the staff and congregationof St. Pauls church have a medium level of sensitivity to likely significantamenity impacts.

.

10.4.36 See Vol 25 Figure 10.4.1 for a baseline plan which indicates the featuresidentified above.

Commercial activity

10.4.37 There are two businesses facing the site located on the south side ofCrossfield Street:

a. a trade counter sales (retail) business, occupying four lightindustrial/studio units within the arches of the railway.

b. a car repair and servicing business occupying an area of land adjacentto the railway lines and St. Josephs Primary School.

10.4.38 The four light industrial/studio units occupied by the trade counter salesbusiness form part of the 24 unit Resolution Way estate. The remainingunits of this business estate are found in arches accessible via the southside of the railway line, which have no access from, or outlook onto,Crossfield Street. The two businesses generally operate during normalworking hours.

10.4.39 During a visit to the site, it was observed that Crossfield Street was usedextensively for parking. The business premises themselves are partiallyscreened from the proposed site by trees at the site boundary and alsoadjacent to where Crossfield Street becomes a footpath-only route.

10.4.40 Taking the nature of the businesses into account, it is considered that theproject would not cause undue disturbance to the businesses and thatpotential amenity effects would not be significant. As such, thesebusinesses are not considered further within this socio-economic impactassessment.

Summary

10.4.41 A summary of receptors as described in the baseline conditions and theirsensitivity is provided in the table below.


145/325



Vol 25 Table 10.4.1 Socio-economics receptor values/sensitivities


Users of open space Crossfield Street Open

Space

Medium recreational opportunitiesprovided by the open space likely to be

limited due to its size, internal division, andpoor quality, with alternative opportunitiesfor recreation available in adjacent greenspaces. Main users of open space (dogwalkers, children) likely to be more limited intheir ability to use other nearby areas.

Users of open space St.Pauls Churchyard andSue Godfrey Nature Park

Low there are alternative sections andareas of open space a short distance awayfrom the site which provide opportunities foruse.

Residents of nearbyproperties

Medium residents less able to avoideffects but less sensitive during the daywhen the effects would be experienced.

Staff and pupils of St.Josephs Primary School

Medium children in particular may bemore sensitive to construction relatedamenity impacts; usage of the spaces,particularly external spaces, within theschool varies over the course of the dayand week.

Staff and congregation ofSt. Pauls Church

Medium partially screened by a highmasonry/stone walling; providing for arange of community based uses at varioustimes of the week, including Sundays whenno construction work is proposed.

10.5 Construction assessment

Construction base and development casesBase case

10.5.1 For this site, the base case year is Year 1 of the construction works. Thisis the year when site establishment is proposed to commence and marksthe start of the assessment period for socio-economic effects.

10.5.2 It is assumed that the base case would remain largely the same as the sitebaseline conditions as there is no major development proposed within theimmediate vicinity. As a result, it is expected that the socio economicconditions at the site would remain the same under the existing baseline.

10.5.3 An exception to this is that there may be changes in the number and typeof businesses located in the surrounding area, eg, businesses may openor close and sites that are currently occupied may become unoccupied. Itis not possible however to forecast this with any accuracy and thereforethis cannot be taken into account in the assessment.


146/325



Development case

10.5.4 Under the development case, it is expected that the following changes tothe baseline would occur:

a. The Crossfield Street Open Space would be physically cordoned off to

allow for the construction works, resulting in the temporary closure ofalmost all of (up to approximately 0.4ha) of the open space for aperiod of approximately four and a half years.

b. Nearby residents, users of adjacent open spaces, and staff and pupilsat the nearby school, and staff and users of St Pauls Church may besubject to construction and construction-traffic related impacts such asair pollution noise, dust, and/or or visual disturbance. These impactsmay occur individually or in combination with one another.

Construction effects

Temporary closure of open space Crossfield Street Open Space 10.5.5 The construction works would result in the temporary cordoning-off and

closure of the Crossfield Street Open Space. As a result, there would be atemporary loss of access to up to approximately 0.4ha of public openspace.

10.5.6 This would result in a loss of opportunities for passive recreation at thislocation, such as sitting on the grassed area beneath trees, casual walkingand dog walking/exercising, and their displacement to other open spaceareas surrounding the site. It would also result in the loss of the space touse by St Josephs school children for casual play and as a gathering area

before and after school.10.5.7 The duration of the closure, being approximately four and a half years,

would constitute an upper-level medium term impact. The number ofusers likely to be impacted by the temporary closure would be likely to berestricted in number given its size, quality (Section 10.4) and the existenceof alternative, larger and better quality open spaces within a short distanceat and north of St Pauls Churchyard and within the Sue Godfrey NaturePark that are likely to be favoured by people seeking out open spaces forrecreation. The exceptions may be for dog walkers and St Josephsschool children.

10.5.8 On this basis and taking account of the fact that there would beopportunity for park users to undertake the same types of activities withinthe alternative open spaces nearby, the impact magnitude arising from thetemporary loss of open space at the site is likely to be low.

10.5.9 Taking account of the low magnitude of the impact and the mediumsensitivity of park users to the loss of this open space, the overall effect onusers of the open space and their access to recreational opportunitiesoffered by the open space is considered to be minor adverse andtherefore not significant. It is stressed that this is a preliminary and outlinefinding only at this stage.


147/325



Amenity effects on open space (St Pauls Churchyard and SueGodfrey Nature Park) users

10.5.10 Air quality, noise and vibration, and visual impacts arising as a result of theproposed construction works and construction related traffic maypotentially act individually or in combination with one another to reduce theenvironmental amenity experienced by users of St. Pauls Churchyard(both parts either side of the wall) and Sue Godfrey Nature Park within thevicinity of the proposed construction site.

10.5.11 Assessments have been undertaken to examine the likely significant airquality, noise and vibration, and visual effects arising during theconstruction phase. With respect to the likely significant effects of theproposed works on nearby public open space, the following pointssummarise the preliminary findings of the assessments:

a. air quality effects are likely to be minor adverse and construction dusteffects are likely to be negligible. Air quality effects arising as a resultof the proposed works are therefore likely to result in a significanteffect on open space.

b. no other noise or vibration receptors, in relation to the nearby openspaces, were identified. Vibration (human response) effects are notlikely to have a significant effect.

c. visual effects are likely to be major adverse at one of the tworecreational viewpoints identified within these two nearby open spaces(although this viewpoint is taken from an elevated position on thesteps of the Church and would not apply to all viewpoints from withinthe church yard) and minor adverse at the other viewpoint in FerrantiPark for the duration of the construction period (viewpoints 2.1 and 2.2respectively).

10.5.12 For further information, refer to Section 4 Air Quality and Odour, Section 9Noise and Vibration, and Section 11 Townscape and Visual within thisVolume.

10.5.13 The above findings regarding air quality, dust, noise and vibration, andvisual effects have been taken into consideration in undertaking anassessment of the overall magnitude of impact for amenity impacts onrecreational receptors below. The preliminary findings of the assessment

balance the above findings considering the contribution that eachassessed element (eg, the quality of the air, the quality of a view) makesto a receptors overall experience of amenity, together with otherconsiderations presented below.

10.5.14 In terms of duration, the pote

peir main report vol25 deptford church street

Documents